Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 08 Aug '16 00:14 / 1 edit
    On previous threat I gossiped Vladimir Vukovic who analyzed game Euwe vs. Najdorf, and I also noticed couple of Bronstein's too-much-easy comments.

    Now I found some mistakes in Najdorf's book, and a joke or two in Bronstein's book.

    I decided to go through games in order of appearance, and to compare their analyses.

    Taimanov vs Bronstein
    (Game 1 in Najdorf's book and Game 5 in Bronstein's one)

    Although Bronstein in a long introduction in rather affected manner in drama queen style claims that "it's difficult to be unbiased when it comes to comment your own games" it seems that both Najdorf and Bronstein were better when commenting their own games. It seems that players know best what they were thinking!
    First the game Taimanov - Bronstein-->


    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 g6 4. Nc3 d6 5. e4 b5 6. cxb5 Bg7
    7. Nf3 O-O 8. Be2 a6 9. bxa6 Bxa6 10. O-O Qc7 11. Re1 Nbd7
    12. Bxa6 Rxa6 13. Qd2


    Bronstein asserts that this is (?) move, since White has no chances to advance his Pawn on e5. Consequently it was better 13. Qc2 or even before that 11. Bf4 (like Bronstein himself played against early ...b5 against Lundin). Now I learned not to trust GMs in such nuances. Public Rybka would still chose 13. Qe2 on this spot.

    13....Rfa8 14. h3

    Here comes silly comment from Najdorf. (*Or it was his assistant Dr. Watson alias Julio Bolbochan?)

    Here Najdorf says that 14. e5 is bad due 14...dxe5 15. Nxe5 Nxd5?? 16. Nxg6?? Re6, which is winning for Black.
    Rubbish.
    I looked at the position for 15 minutes without moving pieces, then I moved the pieces and I stared at this position:

    White is on the move and Black is winning?! No way.
    Actually 15. Nxe5 is god for draw, and Black should take it 15...Nxe5, and after blunder 16. Nxg6??, Black should play 16...Bxc3 with advantage.

    Bronstein is also wrong when telling that it "no longer apeals to play e5" since it as said gives comfort equal position.

    14... Nb6 15. Bg5 Ne8 16. Bd2

    Although it is waste of time, it is not mistake. Taimanov didn't like 16.a3 probably because of 16...Bxc3 and Black has plan with Na4, Pc4 etc and good chances to return the Pawn back. Bronstein even thinks that Black could suffer then from weakness of dark fields around his King.

    16...Na4! 17. Nxa4 Rxa4 18. Bc3 Bxc3

    Now Bronstein is making joke or he really see ghosts: he says 18....Rxa2 19. Rxa2 Rxa2 20. e5 would have given White serious targets! Boolsh.it. It is equal game. I also think that he is joking when mentioning "weak dark squares" in previous comment...

    19. bxc3 Qa5 20. Qe3
    In Bronstein's book there is 20. Qd3. Probably a typo.

    20...Qa6


    Okay, meybe not typo, since Bronstein mentions 21. Qxa6 as a weaker possibility, because "White has better chances with Queens on the board", maybe then Najdorf's score was wrong. Chessgames.com also gives 20. Qd3. Bronstein analyzes 21. Qxa6 R8xa6 22. Re2 Nf6 and it is really awkward for White.

    But it means that Najdorf analyzed wrong position because he suggests 21. e5 assuming his Queen is on e3!? Wtf?!
    21. e5 is really god for draw if Queen was on e3.

    21. Qd2 Rxa2 22. Rxa2 Qxa2 23. e5

    Najdorf says "too late" based on his probably wrong position (*or it was Dr. Watson-Bolbochan the same way as it was Watson-Veinstein who did all wrong all bad in Bronstein's book?!)

    Bronstein from his side (*Veinstein?!) writes for 23. e5 that "White underestimated Black's next move" but free Rybka says 23. e5 is the best and gives chances for draw.

    23...Qxd2 24. Nxd2 dxe5 25. Rxe5 Kf8



    And now White could have saved the game with Kf1 or Re1, but he made a mistake 26. Nb3. I think it still wasn't decisive mistake. Even 26. Nc4 was better.
    Bronstein is fair when he mentions 26. Kf1 as better move.
    On the other hand Najdorf mentions great zeitnot and "mutual mistakes"
    ...
    ...
    Game Bronstein vs. Najdorf from Round 2



    Bronstein vs. Najdorf II Round

    1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Bg5 c5 6. d5 Na6
    7. Bd3 Nc7 8. Nge2 a6 9. a4 Rb8 10. O-O O-O 11. Qc2 Bd7 12. h3
    b5



    Najdorf claims that ...c5 is premature, and that instead of ...Na6 6...e6 was better. He gives: 7. dxe6 Bxe6 8. Nb5 O-O 9. Qxd6 or Nxd6 and "Black has compensation after ...Nc6!" White should not take Pawn on e6, though.

    Now for this position Bronstein says that Black advanced his Queen Pawns so far ahead, that White must consider counterattack on King Wing. Hence 13. f4.

    But this is just "theoretical" boolsh.it.ing. Najdorf writes also a "general knowledge" in style that whenever White advances Pawn e5 i Ben-Oni-like positions, he almost wins."

    13. f4 Nfe8 14. axb5 axb5 15. Ra7 bxc4 16. Bxc4 Ra8

    Najdorf gives "!" to his move, whilst Bronstein calmly notice that he is going to exchange "Black's only active piece".
    In the mean time Najdorf gives funny coffee shop trap--->
    17. Rfa1? Rxa7 18. Rxa7 Qb8 19. Rxc7 Qxc7! 20. Bxe7 Ba4 and Black wins



    17. Rac8 Nxa8 18. Qb3
    Both Najdorf and Bronstein point out that Black Queen is tied to defense of Pawn e7. Therefor Black must play next "ugly" move



    18...f6 19. Bh4 Qb6

    Exchanges would enable Black to breathe more easily.

    20. Qa3

    Free Rybka says 20. Qa2 is better and now I need a coach to tell me why. Maybe I figure it out in next few days or maybe never.

    20...Nec7 21. b3 Nb5



    Najdorf says it was a mistake and recommends 21...Re8.
    Bronstein says nothing. Actually position is equal and there is no big difference between ...Nb5, ...Re8 or ...Rb8.

    22. Nxb5 Bxb5 23. f5! Bh6!

    Both Bronstein and Najdorf write as it was critical point at the game and Bronstein is fantasizing about Nf4 and Ne6. Their exclamation marks.
    23. Ra1 is little better according free Rybka.

    24. fxg6 hxg6 25. e5!



    It is still equal position.

    25...Bxc4 26. bxc4 dxe5 27.Qd3



    Bronstein says he is now "only two or three moves away from taking over all key points on Queen side" (Nc3, Rb1).
    Najdorf is giving nothing away from his thoughts except "it was difficult to me to decide whether ...Kg7 or ...Kh7, but I was afraid of future checks on diagonal..."

    Bronstein says that 27. Bf2 was maybe better instead of 27. Qd3.
    Or it was Veinstein? Free Rybka is agreed with them.

    27...Kg7 28.Nc3 Qb3! 29. Rb1 e4!

    Exchange of Queens is leading to a rescue harbor.

    30. Rxb3 exd3 31. Rb7 Kg8



    Najdorf gives an exclamation mark and Bronstein says "White must not take Pawn since black Bishop would get freedom", but I couldn't stop thinking about 31... Rf7.
    And why not at once 31... Bf4 and "get freedom" for the Bishop?
    Free Rybka says both moves are good!

    32. Kf2 Bf4 33. Kf3 Rb8 34. Rxb8+



    Here Bronstein says he should have played 24. Rxe7 since after Rook exchange it is draw.
    Both moves are drawish.

    But instead of 33. Kf3, Bronstein found 33. Bg3! which really would have given White chances to win.
    Here:

    33. Bg3

    The end of the game is:
    34... Bxb8 35. Na4 Bd6 36. Bf2
    Kf7 37. Ke3 Nc7 38. Kxd3 Na6 39. Ke4 f5+ 40. Kf3 e6 41. Nb6


    To-day I also looked the game Stahlberg vs. Geller from Round 3, and I couldn't tell if Najdorf is right when he asserts that in this position,

    Black should have moved 26...h5 instead of 26...c5.
    "Direct attack was better" wrote Najdorf (*or Watson-Bolbochan).
    Not sure.

    It's so encouraging to see others' mistakes!
  2. 10 Aug '16 14:42
    Originally posted by vandervelde
    On previous threat I gossiped Vladimir Vukovic who analyzed game Euwe vs. Najdorf, and I also noticed couple of Bronstein's too-much-easy comments.

    Now I found some mistakes in Najdorf's book, and a joke or two in Bronstein's book.

    I decided to go through games in order of appearance, and to compare their analyses.

    [b]Taimanov vs Bronstein

    ...[text shortened]... ote Najdorf (*or Watson-Bolbochan).
    Not sure.

    It's so encouraging to see others' mistakes![/b]
    I've heard for years this book was one of the best chess books ever published. Could you please tell me why. It seems like just another chess tournament to me.
  3. Subscriber sundown316
    The Mighty Messenger
    14 Aug '16 16:48
    The English edition of Najdorf's book is a disaster-typos galore, missing moves, etc. I'll stick with Bronstein's version.