1. Joined
    15 Dec '20
    Moves
    11
    21 Oct '21 17:14
    In the game Euwe-Smyslov (Zurich Candidates, 1953), the following position was reached after 30...Qc5-e7.



    The game continued 31. Qe2 Rxd7 32. Bxd7 Qxd7 33. Qxe5+, and Black eventually won.

    In David Bronstein's book on the tournament, he rejects 31. Rd1 based on the continuation 31...Rc7 32. Qe1 Nc6 33. b4 Qxb4 34. Nxe5 Qxe1+ 35. Rxe1 Nxe5 36. Rxe5 Rd2 "and Black must win." (See next diagram for this sequence.)



    In the kibitzing section for this game at chessgames dot com, poster Hesam7 proposes 33. Qc3 (instead of 33. b4) 33...Rdxd7 34. Rxd7 Rxd7 35. Qxc6. (See next diagram for this sequence, starting with 31. Rd1.)



    In the position reached in the above diagram, Black is up the exchange for a pawn, but converting this to a win will require finding and exploiting targets in White's position. The two obvious ones are White's b-pawn and f-pawn, each of which lies on a half-open file.

    While exploiting these targets, Black mustn't overlook the main weaknesses in his own position: the isolated a- and e-pawns and his open second rank.

    Let's consider where Black's pieces might ideally belong so that they could pressure White's targets while protecting Black's. Interestingly, White's f-pawn is on the same line as Black's a-pawn, and the same is true of White's b-pawn and Black's e-pawn. These facts suggest that the Black queen occupy the d4-square, from which she would control the squares occupied by all four of those pawns.

    To guard Black's weak second rank, the rook would need to occupy it, but the good news is that it would have access to both b7 and f7, from which to pressure the White pawns on those files. Last but not least, Black's king would seem fairly well-sheltered at g7. (See next diagram for this setup in the absence of White's pieces.)



    Now let's consider where White's pieces might belong. The b-pawn might ultimately need the bishop's protection, which suggests putting the pawn at b3 and the bishop at c4. A side benefit of having the bishop at c4 would be that it would control f7, thereby preventing Black's rook from occupying that square.

    If White's queen were to also find her way to the a2/g8 diagonal (say, at d5), she might have access to g8 and then to other squares along that rank, which could harass Black's king.

    It's not clear that White's king has a better spot than g1, so we'll leave it there for now. We'll imagine White's queen at e6, where she has ready access not only to g8 but to both wings. (See next diagram for this setup in the absence of Black's pieces.)



    Back to the actual position...



    We'll try moving the rook to b7 to threaten one of the identified targets (the b-pawn) and thereby constrain White's viable replies.

    After 35...Rb7, 36. Qc8+ Kg7 37. Be6 gets White nothing after 37...Rxb2 38. Qg8+ Kh6. If instead of 37. Be6, White's queen retreats along the c-file, then White will have wasted a tempo while Black played the constructive 36...Kg7. Therefore, White's queen should retreat immediately.

    We'll examine 36. Qc2 first. For the play and notes, see the diagram below.



    In the ending reached above, Black's king will head for White's b-pawn, after which Black will return the exchange in order to capture both of White's queenside pawns. Then, while White's king is preoccupied by Black's passed a-pawn, Black's king will head for White's abandoned kingside pawn(s).

    Now we'll examine 36. Qc1. For the play and notes, see the diagram below.



    Finally, we'll analyze 36. Qc3.



    This discussion seems to demonstrate that White would have been lost in the following position (where Black is to move).
  2. Standard membermchill
    Cryptic
    Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    2473
    22 Oct '21 03:571 edit
    @fmdavidhlevin said
    In the game Euwe-Smyslov (Zurich Candidates, 1953), the following position was reached after 30...Qc5-e7.

    [fen]2rr3k/p2Nq2p/6p1/4p3/Pn6/6PB/1P1Q1P1P/R5K1 w - - - -[/fen]

    The game continued 31. Qe2 Rxd7 32. Bxd7 Qxd7 33. Qxe5+, and Black eventually won.

    In David Bronstein's book on the tournament, he rejects 31. Rd1 based on the continuation 31...Rc7 32. Qe1 Nc6 ...[text shortened]... n the following position (where Black is to move).
    [fen]7k/p2rq2p/2Q3p1/4p3/P7/6PB/1P3P1P/6K1[/fen]
    I have no doubt the analysis is correct, but was wondering, why the book on this 1953 candidates tournament is on so many "top ten" lists, I played through the games of that tournament many years ago, but didn't think they were of any higher quality than any other candidates tournament, or any Informant for that matter. So, why is this book so revered?
  3. SubscriberContenchess
    Contentious
    Joined
    01 Sep '21
    Moves
    4400
    22 Oct '21 04:11
    @mchill

    I've been told the book explains middle game strategy like no other tournament book.

    I have yet to study it. I might buy it for Christmas.
  4. Joined
    15 Dec '20
    Moves
    11
    22 Oct '21 15:27
    @contenchess said
    @mchill

    I've been told the book explains middle game strategy like no other tournament book.
    That's been my experience. The game Stahlberg-Boleslavsky (from Round 1 of Zurich, 1953) features several such remarks by Bronstein. I'll quote part of one. For context, the game began as depicted in the following diagram.
    The note to Black's 23rd move includes the following passage (for which I've substituted algebraic notation for the original descriptive):

    'I think now is the time to acquaint the reader with the mysteries of Black's d-pawn in the King's Indian. Even though it is situated on an open file and is constantly exposed to attack, it is not an easy nut to crack. The simplest method for White is apparently to retreat the Knight from d4, but d4 is precisely where White needs the Knight to be: its jobs are to supervise b5, c6, e6, and f5 and to neutralize the influence of Black's g7-bishop. Only after White has taken steps against possible Black attacks (...a3, ...Be6, ...f5) can his Knight leave the center, but during that time Black can regroup his forces.

    'So the weakness of the d-pawn proves to be imaginary. Contemporary methods of play in the opening recognize the illusory weakness of such pawns. But it was just because of the "eternal" weakness of d6 that the King's Indian was long considered a dubious opening.'
  5. Standard membermchill
    Cryptic
    Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    2473
    04 Nov '21 17:352 edits
    @fmdavidhlevin said
    That's been my experience. The game Stahlberg-Boleslavsky (from Round 1 of Zurich, 1953) features several such remarks by Bronstein. I'll quote part of one. For context, the game began as depicted in the following diagram.
    [pgn]1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. e4 Re8 9. h3 exd4 10. Nxd4 Nc5 11. Re1 a5 12. Qc2[/pgn]The note to B ...[text shortened]... cause of the "eternal" weakness of d6 that the King's Indian was long considered a dubious opening.'
    That's been my experience. The game Stahlberg-Boleslavsky (from Round 1 of Zurich, 1953) features several such remarks by Bronstein.


    Let us assume you folks are correct, and the explanations of the text moves of that tournament are superior to that of most other chess books, that's a good thing IMHO. One would think; after nearly 7 decades, other authors would do the same. All of us have read things like "don't memorize moves, learn the reason behind them" So, how does one learn the reason behind the moves, if no reasons are given? 😕

    - That's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree