| |
Main
Date: 14 Feb 2008 05:38:07
From: RookHouse
Subject: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
Came across this game from the 1950 Candidates playoff for the right
to face Botvinnik and just thought I would share it.
Bronstein went on to win the playoff +3 -2 =9.
[Event "Cm ( f )"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1950.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Isaac Boleslavsky"]
[Black "David Bronstein"]
[ECO "C66"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "109"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. Nc3 Be7
7. Bxc6 Bxc6 8. Qd3 exd4 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Bf4 Nd7 11. Rad1 Bf6
12. b4 Re8 13. Rfe1 Bxd4 14. Qxd4 b5 15. Rd3 Qf6 16. Qxf6 Nxf6
17. f3 a5 18. a3 axb4 19. axb4 Nd7 20. Nd5 Ra7 21. Red1 Ne5
22. Bxe5 Rxe5 23. Ne3 Bd7 24. Rc3 Be6 25. Rd4 g5 26. g3 Kf8
27. Kf2 f6 28. Rdd3 g4 29. Ra3 Rxa3 30. Rxa3 Rh5 31. fxg4
Rxh2+ 32. Kf3 Ke7 33. Ra8 Bc4 34. Nf5+ Kd7 35. Rh8 Rxc2
36. Rxh7+ Kc8 37. Rh6 Rb2 38. Rxf6 Rxb4 39. g5 Bd3 40. Re6 d5
41. Ne7+ Kd7 42. exd5 Rb3 43. Kf4 Rb4+ 44. Kf3 Rb3 45. Kg4
Rb4+ 46. Kh5 Re4 47. Ng6 b4 48. Nf8+ Kd8 49. g6 Rxe6 50. g7
Be2+ 51. Kg5 Re4 52. Kf6 Rg4 53. Ng6 Rxg6+ 54. Kxg6 Bd3+
55. Kh6 1-0
Enjoy!!
Morphy
http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2008 17:31:54
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 17, 8:28=A0pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Yes, because then the context of chess history will be clearer.- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
Just meant that I would read more about it and post for my readers
that may not come to this chess group.
No need to be a st ass.
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2008 17:28:06
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 17, 4:57 pm, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:10 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 1:46 pm, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 11:51 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
> > > > Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
> > > > in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he
> > > > decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
> > > > The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, was
> > > > to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
> > > > Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
> > > > Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
> > > > +0 -7 =4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-one
> > > > match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
> > > > match was arranged.
>
> > > Amazing. Seems the Russians were constantly toying with the system
> > > back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Fischer was so right about the
> > > corruption in the Soviet chess machine.
>
> > I'm not sure I would characterize this as an instance of corruption
> > as the word is usually applied to Soviet chess, i.e. collusion and
> > other forms of cheating to ensure Soviet victories over non-Soviet
> > players. The key to the 1950 Candidates, in my opinion, lies in the
> > antipathy between two Soviets, Botvinnik and Vainstein.
> > Boris Vainstein (1907-1993), besides being head of Soviet chess
> > administration, was a high-ranking member of the NKVD, the USSR's
> > secret police headed by the notorious Lavrente Beria. He and Botvinnik
> > were at loggerheads over Botvinnik's desire to play Alekhine for the
> > world title. Vainstein may have opposed this even before WW II on the
> > grounds that the defector Alekhine was a traitor to the Motherland;
> > after the war he most certainly opposed it on grounds that Alekhine
> > was a Nazi collaborator.
> > Botvinnik, besides resenting Vainstein's interference with his title
> > match ambitions, despised BV personally and politically. MB was a
> > loyal member of the Communist Party; according to Soltis he saw
> > Vainstein "as a well-connected member of the hoodlum elite that had
> > humbled the Party during the Terror." Westerners tend to think of the
> > USSR of those days as a monolithic structure, but it definitely its
> > share of internal schisms and competing factions, the NKVD-vs-CP being
> > one example. It's hard not to see the Botvinnik-Vainstein antipathy as
> > a microcosm of this, as well as a personal matter.
> > The antipathy continued after Alekhine's death, with the events of
> > 1950 being its most important recurrence, IMO. As Soltis points out in
> > "Soviet Chess 1917-1991," pp. 185-187, it was Vainstein who rigged the
> > Candidates Tournament so that Bronstein and Boleslavsky would tie, in
> > hopes of arranging a 3-way match tournament. With Boleslavsky and
> > Bronstein being both good friends and Vainstein proteges, it's not
> > hard imagine how they might collude against Botvinnik in such a
> > contest and thus ensure that MB did not retain the title.
> > Botvinnik certainly suspected this, and thus refused such a
> > disadvantageous arrangement. Perhaps in this case MB's party
> > connections trumped BV's NKVD connections, or perhaps Botvinnik's
> > refusal, grounded in FIDE rules, was enough. Though as Soltis points
> > out, the Soviets showed little consideration for FIDE in all this --
> > they did not even report the result of the Boleslavsky-Bronstein
> > playoff for more than 20 days after it was over.
>
> > At least, the above seems to me a plausible picture of those events,
> > based on what I have read in Bronstein and Soltis. Perhaps others
> > better versed in Soviet history can offer more information.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Interesting. I may research this even further and do a story about it
> on my Rook House blog (after Morelia-Linares is completed).
Yes, because then the context of chess history will be clearer.
|
| |
Date: 17 Feb 2008 08:57:34
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 17, 11:10=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:46=A0pm, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:51=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
> > > Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
> > > in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he=
> > > decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
> > > =A0 The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, w=
as
> > > to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
> > > Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
> > > Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
> > > +0 -7 =3D4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-on=
e
> > > match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
> > > match was arranged.
>
> > Amazing. =A0Seems the Russians were constantly toying with the system
> > back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. =A0Fischer was so right about the
> > corruption in the Soviet chess machine.
>
> =A0 I'm not sure I would characterize this as an instance of corruption
> as the word is usually applied to Soviet chess, i.e. collusion and
> other forms of cheating to ensure Soviet victories over non-Soviet
> players. The key to the 1950 Candidates, in my opinion, lies in the
> antipathy between two Soviets, Botvinnik and Vainstein.
> =A0 Boris Vainstein (1907-1993), besides being head of Soviet chess
> administration, was a high-ranking member of the NKVD, the USSR's
> secret police headed by the notorious Lavrente Beria. He and Botvinnik
> were at loggerheads over Botvinnik's desire to play Alekhine for the
> world title. Vainstein may have opposed this even before WW II on the
> grounds that the defector Alekhine was a traitor to the Motherland;
> after the war he most certainly opposed it on grounds that Alekhine
> was a Nazi collaborator.
> =A0 Botvinnik, besides resenting Vainstein's interference with his title
> match ambitions, despised BV personally and politically. MB was a
> loyal member of the Communist Party; according to Soltis he saw
> Vainstein "as a well-connected member of the hoodlum elite that had
> humbled the Party during the Terror." Westerners tend to think of the
> USSR of those days as a monolithic structure, but it definitely its
> share of internal schisms and competing factions, the NKVD-vs-CP being
> one example. It's hard not to see the Botvinnik-Vainstein antipathy as
> a microcosm of this, as well as a personal matter.
> =A0 The antipathy continued after Alekhine's death, with the events of
> 1950 being its most important recurrence, IMO. As Soltis points out in
> "Soviet Chess 1917-1991," pp. 185-187, it was Vainstein who rigged the
> Candidates Tournament so that Bronstein and Boleslavsky would tie, in
> hopes of arranging a 3-way match tournament. With Boleslavsky and
> Bronstein being both good friends and Vainstein proteges, it's not
> hard imagine how they might collude against Botvinnik in such a
> contest and thus ensure that MB did not retain the title.
> =A0 Botvinnik certainly suspected this, and thus refused such a
> disadvantageous arrangement. Perhaps in this case MB's party
> connections trumped BV's NKVD connections, or perhaps Botvinnik's
> refusal, grounded in FIDE rules, was enough. Though as Soltis points
> out, the Soviets showed little consideration for FIDE in all this --
> they did not even report the result of the Boleslavsky-Bronstein
> playoff for more than 20 days after it was over.
>
> =A0 At least, the above seems to me a plausible picture of those events,
> based on what I have read in Bronstein and Soltis. Perhaps others
> better versed in Soviet history can offer more information.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting. I may research this even further and do a story about it
on my Rook House blog (after Morelia-Linares is completed).
Thanks,
Morphy
http://www.rookhouse.com
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2008 15:46:00
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 15, 11:12=A0pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I don't think that this is an example of "corruption".
>
Maybe "corrpution" is the wrong word, but the Russians always seemed
to have hidden agendas and prepared games.
Very rare that they just "played chess". They continually had to
ensure that their guys won, or even that their favorites won over
other Russians (i.e. Karpov-Korchnoi, Karpov-Kasparov, etc.).
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 23:43:54
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 15, 11:18 pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>
> Also, Bronstein ried Boleslavky's daughter Tatiana.
So what? It was a two-way street. Another man would
tell Bronstein:
well, my son, let me play Botvinnik. You're young,
you'll have your chance many times in the years
to come.
Instead, etc.
W=B3od
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 23:25:49
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 15, 4:51 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:50 am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:16 am, Offramp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Bronstein wrote that Boleslavsky REALLY didn't want to play Botvinnik,
> > > whereas Bronstein fancied his own chances. Boleslavsky therefore
> > > allowed Bronstein to catch up during the Candidates tournament.
>
> > I have a difficult time believing that someone as talented and
> > dedicated as Boleslavsky would fight to get all the way to this point
> > and then suddenly become "afraid" and "tank" his chances at the crown.
>
> > Nobody will ever convince me of those supposed "facts".
>
> You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
> Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
> in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he
> decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
> The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, was
> to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
> Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
> Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
> +0 -7 =4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-one
> match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
> match was arranged.
I suppose the motivation for Boleslavsky (I nearly wrote Stanislavsky)
in the play-off was to show at least that he could beat Bronstein, and
then hope for the best in the WC match v Botvinnik.
In any case what I was trying to show is how Bronstein fared in that
WC cycle - he tied, drew and drew in the events.
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 23:18:45
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 16, 4:12 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:46 am, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:51 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
> > > Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
> > > in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he
> > > decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
> > > The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, was
> > > to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
> > > Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
> > > Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
> > > +0 -7 =4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-one
> > > match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
> > > match was arranged.
>
> > Amazing. Seems the Russians were constantly toying with the system
> > back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Fischer was so right about the
> > corruption in the Soviet chess machine.
>
> I don't think that this is an example of "corruption".
> And I don't think that the stated reasons were it.
> Boleslavsky was just an unusually nice guy,
> very mild. If you told him "Slow down, because
> of the phase of the moon.", he would probably
> respond "Oh? Ok.".
>
> He knew that Alechine never won against
> Capa until when it counted.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wlod
Also, Bronstein ried Boleslavky's daughter Tatiana.
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 20:12:32
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 15, 10:46 am, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 11:51 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
> > Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
> > in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he
> > decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
> > The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, was
> > to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
> > Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
> > Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
> > +0 -7 =4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-one
> > match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
> > match was arranged.
>
> Amazing. Seems the Russians were constantly toying with the system
> back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Fischer was so right about the
> corruption in the Soviet chess machine.
I don't think that this is an example of "corruption".
And I don't think that the stated reasons were it.
Boleslavsky was just an unusually nice guy,
very mild. If you told him "Slow down, because
of the phase of the moon.", he would probably
respond "Oh? Ok.".
He knew that Alechine never won against
Capa until when it counted.
Best regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 10:46:16
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 15, 11:51=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> =A0 You should read Bronstein's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." What
> Offramp refers to is discussed on page 107: "Boleslavsky was leading
> in the Candidates Tournament, but after a talk with Boris Vainstein he
> decided to slow down to allow me to tie for first place with him."
> =A0 The idea of Vainstein, then head of the Soviet chess federation, was
> to propose a three-way match-tournament between Botvinnik,
> Boleslavsky, and Bronstein, to decide the title. That is why
> Boleslavsky slowed down. He had a dreadful record against Botvinnik,
> +0 -7 =3D4 at the time, and knew he stood little chance in a one-on-one
> match. When Botvinnik would have none of the 3-way idea, the playoff
> match was arranged.
>
Amazing. Seems the Russians were constantly toying with the system
back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Fischer was so right about the
corruption in the Soviet chess machine.
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 07:50:44
From: RookHouse
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 15, 4:16=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Bronstein wrote that Boleslavsky REALLY didn't want to play Botvinnik,
> whereas Bronstein fancied his own chances. Boleslavsky therefore
> allowed Bronstein to catch up during the Candidates tournament.
>
I have a difficult time believing that someone as talented and
dedicated as Boleslavsky would fight to get all the way to this point
and then suddenly become "afraid" and "tank" his chances at the crown.
Nobody will ever convince me of those supposed "facts".
|
| |
Date: 15 Feb 2008 01:16:31
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Boleslavsky-Bronstein 1950
|
On Feb 14, 1:38 pm, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> Came across this game from the 1950 Candidates playoff for the right
> to face Botvinnik and just thought I would share it.
>
> Bronstein went on to win the playoff +3 -2 =9.
>
> [Event "Cm ( f )"]
> [Site "Moscow"]
> [Date "1950.??.??"]
> [EventDate "?"]
> [Round "8"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [White "Isaac Boleslavsky"]
> [Black "David Bronstein"]
> [ECO "C66"]
> [WhiteElo "?"]
> [BlackElo "?"]
> [PlyCount "109"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. Nc3 Be7
> 7. Bxc6 Bxc6 8. Qd3 exd4 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Bf4 Nd7 11. Rad1 Bf6
> 12. b4 Re8 13. Rfe1 Bxd4 14. Qxd4 b5 15. Rd3 Qf6 16. Qxf6 Nxf6
> 17. f3 a5 18. a3 axb4 19. axb4 Nd7 20. Nd5 Ra7 21. Red1 Ne5
> 22. Bxe5 Rxe5 23. Ne3 Bd7 24. Rc3 Be6 25. Rd4 g5 26. g3 Kf8
> 27. Kf2 f6 28. Rdd3 g4 29. Ra3 Rxa3 30. Rxa3 Rh5 31. fxg4
> Rxh2+ 32. Kf3 Ke7 33. Ra8 Bc4 34. Nf5+ Kd7 35. Rh8 Rxc2
> 36. Rxh7+ Kc8 37. Rh6 Rb2 38. Rxf6 Rxb4 39. g5 Bd3 40. Re6 d5
> 41. Ne7+ Kd7 42. exd5 Rb3 43. Kf4 Rb4+ 44. Kf3 Rb3 45. Kg4
> Rb4+ 46. Kh5 Re4 47. Ng6 b4 48. Nf8+ Kd8 49. g6 Rxe6 50. g7
> Be2+ 51. Kg5 Re4 52. Kf6 Rg4 53. Ng6 Rxg6+ 54. Kxg6 Bd3+
> 55. Kh6 1-0
>
> Enjoy!!
> Morphyhttp://www.rookhouse.com/blog/
Boleslavsky and Bronstein finished equal first with 12 points each at
the 1950 Budapest Candidates Tournament. These two played a play-off
match which was also drawn: 2-2 with 8 draws. So they had a play-off
play-off, the first game of which was drawn, then Bronstein managed to
win. The subsequent match v Botvinnik was also drawn!
Bronstein wrote that Boleslavsky REALLY didn't want to play Botvinnik,
whereas Bronstein fancied his own chances. Boleslavsky therefore
allowed Bronstein to catch up during the Candidates tournament.
|
|
