DAVID BRONSTEIN

@moonbus said
@greenpawn34

Thanks GP. I learn little or nothing from annotations which reel off variations which end with "and white stands better". I want to think through the thought processes of the player(s). As Tartakower once said, the moves are all there, but you have see them. I want to know how GM Bronstein came to see that blockbuster last move in the Korchnoi game, fo ...[text shortened]... move is magnificent! Most players would have been concentrating on trying to avert the mate threat.

I think it all comes down to how far you can think in advance and visualise each stage.
This all comes with hours of practice and study which most players at our level simply do not, or cannot do.
Also you have to do it accurately.
How often do we "see" a brilliant combination,put it into practice and then "oops ,it doesn't work, I've lost a piece!!".
And then of course , the next time you see a brilliant combination you are too cautious to try it out!
On here we have the advantage of analyze board to try out these things.
I've often thought this funtion should only be available retrospectively because you will never improve while ever you use it to work out combinations.
Does anyone agree?
It's academic in a way because I don't think it will ever happen.
On the rook move in the Korchnoi game I doubt many players on this site would have seen it.
Did you see it Geoff?

@venda
I agree, very many times I'd get home (after a club match) & run it through my engine only to see how I 'lost the plot' (subsequently losing the main idea or f/up).
CC v OTB🚬

@venda

Correspondence chess is different to OTB chess. The analysis board is essential to improving at correspondence chess.

Hi venda,

Did I see it. Would I see it. (White to play)


I like to think I may have stumbled on it. But I know me.

There is a move that takes Black's mate off the board and sets a trap.
I may have looked for another move if I got the 'this is a mistake' nag.
But stop a threat and set a trap in one move I would have found too tempting.

But you never know, my trap is also a Skewer so I may have got a 'here there be skewers' nag.

It's hard to explain how everyone thinks. It's just pops into your head.
I have seen the idea before, so the pattern is there (most likely this game
is part of it.) whether or not I could rein myself in and not go for the trap
and look around it is something I know I have done in the past, but I also
know I have ruined games by trap-setting....and won some very gratifying games.

What can I say: I enjoy the buzz of 'will they or won't they' when I set a trap.
This is probably what would have happened if I was White.

@moonbus said
@greenpawn34

Thanks GP. I learn little or nothing from annotations which reel off variations which end with "and white stands better". I want to think through the thought processes of the player(s). As Tartakower once said, the moves are all there, but you have see them. I want to know how GM Bronstein came to see that blockbuster last move in the Korchnoi game, fo ...[text shortened]... move is magnificent! Most players would have been concentrating on trying to avert the mate threat.

Looking at it he must have seen the finish at move 35 as otherwise 35. ... Qb6 makes no sense. Did he make that move on the general prinicple that "loose pieces drop off" or did he have it all calculated?

@moonbus said
@venda

Correspondence chess is different to OTB chess. The analysis board is essential to improving at correspondence chess.

Not sure I agree with "essential"
If you can analyze moves in advance instead of having to visualise the continuations in your head you're never going to be able to "think" like the masters
I agree though that it doesn't really matter in correspondence chess because basically we are just playing for fun at whatever level we wish to challenge ourselves(i.e some players don't care if they win or lose,others can be competetive!!)

@greenpawn34 said
Hi venda,

Did I see it. Would I see it. (White to play)

[fen]1Q5R/6p1/6kp/8/6P1/1p3q2/1P1r2PK/8 w - - 0 39[/fen]
I like to think I may have stumbled on it. But I know me.

There is a move that takes Black's mate off the board and sets a trap.
I may have looked for another move if I got the 'this is a mistake' nag.
But stop a threat and set a trap in one mov ...[text shortened]... . Qe8+ {My trap. Black has to play 39....Qf7. If not then...} 39... Kg5 40. Qh5+ Kf6 41. Rf8+ [/pgn]

"It's hard to explain how everyone thinks".
Too true Geoff.
We're all wired differently.
Some of us can't cope with maths puzzles(like water running into a bath with the plug out (basic algebra)
Others (like me) can't visualise tesellations(what a shape looks like when it's reflected or turned round.
It's the same with chess, you either see things or you don't but experience , as in all things, helps.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Nobody here by that name.