I
went to great pains to make this a "FIVE-STAR" analysis ..... ...
...
as it is one of the greatest games of chess ever played.
Click HERE to see an explanation of the symbols that I use.
Click HERE to go to my re-play page for this game.
(The ratings are accurate. I simply added 50 points to each for inflation.)
One
of the most brilliant and imaginative games ever played.
Period - and bar none.
This
game was played in the FIDE Interzonal Tournament in Petropolis,
Brazil. (1973.)
This
game could not have been played in a more important setting - at a very
critical
time for both players. Ljubojevic - who, at one time, was the # 3 player
in the world -
was in clear first place, and leading this tournament. (Which was a key
step in
qualifying for the World Championships.) Bronstein, who played in
the first FIDE
World Championship Match in 1948, was playing well ... but really needed
to win to
have any chance of qualifying for the Candidates Matches.
The
result is one of the greatest modern masterpieces ever played.
(The game was unanimously voted as the most beautiful of the whole
tournament.)
(This
game has won many different awards. Not only did it win first brilliancy prize
from an important Interzonal -
which featured dozens of brilliant games - it also won the year-long
contest as the best game for that issue of
the Informant. It also was voted game of the year by a distinguished panel
of judges formed by the BCF.)
***
A
very minor footnote: I first saw this game many years ago, it very well may
have
been in the pages of 'CL&R' shortly after this game was played. I had
renewed
interest in this game in 1977 or 1978. What had happened is one of the south's
leading chess players had been interviewed. He was asked to name what the
THREE (3) most complicated games of chess ever played were. {This was
one
of the games that was named.} The GA chess editor, maybe only because he
knew no one else who would even bother, asked me to annotate all three
games.
I mostly copied from books, and did very little original work. The work that I
did
do was probably (mostly) entirely forgettable.
In the end, the majority of
this material was run in the scholastic publication for
the state high school players. (And in some parts of Alabama as well.)
(I
only mention this in case anyone comes across any of my old stuff, and also
to
let you know my interest in this game dates back almost thirty years
now.)
1.e4
Nf6; {Diagram?}
The very sharp Alekhine's defence.
Very
few top GM's employ this line on a regular basis today.
(GM's Lev Alburt and Mike Adams both come to mind.)
This
opening was practically unseen at the GM level for a very long time, until
Bobby Fischer used it, (successfully); against Boris Spassky in their
WCS
match in 1972. {Then it seemed everyone wanted to play it.}
[ In such an important game, I would
have thought that Black would play
1...e5; or even 1...c5; which
is the respected Sicilian Defense. ]
2.e5,
{Diagram?}
The move that is the most often played in this position.
[ Another line is: 2.Nc3!?
d5!; 3.e5!? d4!?; "~" {Diagram?}
with an unbalanced
{unclear} position. ]
2...Nd5;
3.d4 d6; 4.c4!?; {Diagram?}
Was this a prepared line ...
or was this some of Bronstein's justly famous OTB innovation?
This
is not that c4 is a new move here! But to play it against his opponent -
who
was one of the world's experts in this line - took a tremendous amount of ...
let's
say confidence in your own abilities. (To say the least!)
(Ljubojevic
already had the reputation of being thoroughly at home in this line ...
with either color!)
[ MCO gives the line of: 4.Nf3,
{Diagram?}
This is the main line, and what is
most often played here ...
especially today at the GM
level. 4...Bg4; {Diagram?}
The older line, but still probably
the most solid here.
(For 4...g6!? see column # 7.)
5.Be2 e6;
6.0-0 Be7; 7.c4 Nb6; 8.h3!? Bh5; 9.Nc3
0-0;
10.Be3 a5!?;
{Diagram?} A newer move.
(For the older 10...d5!?; see column # 2.)
11.exd6 cxd6;
12.Qb3 N8d7; {Diagram?}
The end of the column. 13.Qb5!?
Bg6; 14.c5 Nc8;
15.Rfd1,
"+/=" {Diagram?}
White has a solid edge here, and went
on to win a nice game.
"White's Queen is in some danger, yet his Queen-side initiative
is
very strong." - GM
N. de Firmian.
I. Glek - A. Shabalov; USSR,
1989.
[ See MCO-14; page # 157, column # 1,
& also note # (f.). ] ]
4...Nb6;
{Diagram?}
The only good move.
[ A mistake is: 4...Nb4?;
5.Qa4+ N8c6; 6.d5, "+/" {Diagram?}
White will eventually win a piece here.
]
5.f4!?,
{Diagram?}
This is definitely razor-sharp. Either Bronstein came loaded for
bear,
or this is something the Russians prepared for poor Ljubo.
This starts the line known as: "The Four Pawns Attack."
This is certainly one of
the wildest lines in all of chess ... and leads to the
most unbalanced positions
that you could imagine.
(I have played this line since before I was a
teen-ager.)
This line is a VERY infrequent guest at the Super-GM level. When I
was
a youngster, I used to go to tournaments, and check the Informants.
(Which I
would occasionally purchase.)
A whole year could go by without one single GM-versus-GM game in this line.
Bronstein guarantees a fight!
This
variation: "promises extremely sharp positions, with mutual chances
for
both parties." - GM J. Timman.
[ White can also play the "Exchange
Variation," with: 5.exd6!? cxd6;
6.Nc3! g6;
7.Be3 Bg7; 8.Rc1 0-0; 9.b3!
e5; 10.dxe5 dxe5; 11.Qxd8,
11...Rxd8;
12.c5 N6d7; 13.Bc4 Nc6; {Diagram?}
The end
of the column. 14.Nf3 Nd4; 15.Ng5 Rf8;
16.Nce4 Nf5;
17.0-0 Nf6;
18.Nd6 Nxd6; 19.cxd6 Bd7; 20.a4,
"+/=" {Diagram?}
... "with the better ending for White
here." - GM N. de Firmian.
GM Roman Dzindzichhasvili -
GM Lev Alburt;
U.S. Championships, 1996.
[ See MCO-14; page # 161,
column # 15, and also note #
(j.). ]
***
It was not too late to play: 5.Nf3!?,
{Diagram?}
and try to
transpose to the main line. ]
5...dxe5;
6.fxe5 c5!?; {Diagram?}
This was thought (previously) to be dubious by theory but was on the brink
of
becoming rehabilitated. Ljubojevic was to go on to become the world's
leading
expert in this line.
Ljubojevic has also - obviously! - come prepared.
GM Lev
Alburt says this move could be doubtful.
(In his book: "The Alekhine For The
Tournament Player.")
GM J. Timman
says that this is a possibly a line
with a poor reputation,
and that it originates with a master from Russia, named
Argunov.
(Many books today call this line, "The Ljubojevic
Variation.")
***
NOTE:
I did numerous database searches from this position.
I found many
recent games from recent events. I found about 25 games, and Black
won
the majority of the encounters. (But in many of these contests, the second
player was higher rated by a fairly considerable margin.) But as none
of
the
games were GM - vs. - GM contests, I do not include them here.
(January 07,
2003.)
Those interested in research should go to an on-line database and
search
this position further.
See
also, (for research):
D. Bryson (2388) - T. Luther (2538);
FIDE (Men's) Olympiad Bled, Slovenia; 2002.
(The game was drawn in 28 moves.)
[ The (more normal?) main line, which is played much more often than
the text,
is: 6...Nc6; 7.Be3 Bf5; 8.Nc3 e6;
9.Nf3, "+/=" {Diagram?}
White usually retains
a very small edge in these lines.
(I sometimes prefer the move order of 9.Be2 and then 10.Nf3.)
I stop here, as Black has about 6 different
moves he has used
in tournament play - all with some measure of success.
(See
any good reference book for details. 9...Be7; is probably the main
line, though.
I would definitely know, as I have over 25 years of tournament
experience in
this particular variation.)
ChessBase's on-line database says that this
position has occurred
at the master level over 1000 times. (!!)
The first time was:
Emanuel Lasker - S.
Tarrasch; Maehrisch Ostrau, 1923. (!)
The most recent GM
example, that I could find, was the game:
GM D. Velimirovc - GM V. Kupreichik;
JUG Championship (Cup) Tournament.
Becici, YUG; 1994.
MCO quotes the game:
Fernandez Garcia - Peter
Leko; Debrecen, 1992.
[ See MCO-14, page # 163,
columns # 19 through # 23,
notes # (a.) through # (p.);
.......................
especially column # 19,
and see also note # (e.). ] ]
The next few moves are all (pretty much)
forced.
7.d5 e6; 8.Nc3 exd5; 9.cxd5 c4; {Diagram?}
An
old idea of V. Mikenas, this line had never been really tested
(much) at the GM
level.
'!' - GM Lev Alburt.
[ "The Alekhine For The
Tournament Player."
By Alburt and Schiller, (c) 1985. ]
Black must be willing to
sacrifice material -
especially the QBP - for play, in this variation.
***
Both
players seem to be playing an odd form of poker.
Each is playing chess as if
trying to say, ... ... ...
"I call your sharp line ... and raise you with an even more
wild line!"
(The complications seem to be increasing exponentially here.)
**************************************
[ Previously played was: 9...Qh4+!?;
10.g3 Qd4; {Diagram?}
when Black was thought to
have a fair amount of play, but then White
discovered the move: 11.Bf4!,
"+/=" {Diagram?} which gives the first
player a very solid advantage.
R. Verber - A. Segal;
World Championship Tourney; (Under-26 players), 1967.
*****
a). One of
my games, from the early-to-mid - 70's, once went:
11.Bf4! N8d7!?; {Diagram?} Several players have also tried the
move ...g5 here, but without any real
success.
12.Nf3 Qb4; {Diagram?} This is almost forced.
(12...Qxd1+?;
13.Rxd1 a6; 14.e6 fxe6?!; 15.dxe6 Nf6;
16.Bc7, "+/-" {Diagram?} Black has lost a
piece. )
13.Qd2!?, {Diagram?} This is very good for White.
(But
probably >= 13.e6!, "+/" {Diag?} is even better.
Nearly "+/-")
13...Be7; 14.Rd1 0-0; 15.Qc2!,
"+/" {Diagram?}
White had a large edge, and went on to win in less
than
30 moves ... against a player who out-rated me by more than
700 points.
*****
b). The older line here was: 11.Bb5+!? Bd7;
12.Bxd7+!, {Diagram?}
Probably the
best move here.
( Not as convincing is the older move: 12.Qe2!?, "~"
{Diagram?}
which often worked out to favor Black.
(See Timman's book and also,
"The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.")
)
12...N8xd7; 13.Nf3! Qxd1+; 14.Kxd1 0-0-0;
15.Kc2!, "+/=" {Diag?}
which probably will give White a small
advantage here. (Maybe - "+/")
(Analysis. {A.J.G.}) ]
**************************************
10.Nf3,
('!') {Diagram?}
The
most natural move here.
Damsky (and others) questions this,
and recommends d6 instead.
Personally I think this is a matter of taste.
***
[ The very respected book, "Nunn's
Chess
Openings,"
gives the following line: 10.d6!? Nc6;
{Diagram?}
The only move
given by Nunn.
(10...f6?; 11.Nb5!? Na6; 12.Qe2, "+/" {A.J.G.} )
11.Nf3 Bg4!?; 12.Bf4 g5!?;
{Diagram?}
The end of the row.
( Better had to be: >/= 12...Qd7; 13.h3 Be6; 14.Qd2, "+/=" {Diag?}
but White retains a very solid edge in this
variation. {A.J.G.} )
13.Ne4! gxf4?!; ('?') {Diagram?}
This seems to be a big
mistake, although Nunn does not seem to notice it.
( It seems Black had to play:
>/= 13...Nd7[]; 14.Bxg5 Qa5+; 15.Qd2!,
15...Qxd2+; 16.Nfxd2!, "+/" {Diagram?} but White is
clearly much
better in this position. {A.J.G.} )
14.Nf6+ Qxf6; {Diagram?}
Unfortunately, this is now forced for Black.
15.exf6 0-0-0;
16.Qc1!, "+/" {Diagram?}
White is clearly better, if not winning outright.
[ See NCO; page # 131,
line/row # 5, and note # 23. ]
***
Estrin and Panov recommend instead that
White play:
10.a3!?,
"+/=" {Diag?} with maybe a slight advantage. ]
10...Bg4;
{Diagram?}
Many books consider this the main line here, but it is hardly
the only move
available to Black.
(Black has also played ...Bb4;
- see the
note just below ...
as well as ...a6; and ...f6.)
**********
[ MCO gives the continuation
of: 10...Bb4!?; (Maybe - '!')
{Diag?}
GM John Nunn
gives this move an exclamation
mark. (!)
11.Bxc4 Bxc3+;
{Diagram?}
The only good move for Black here.
(Otherwise,
Black will lose a Pawn - for no real compensation.)
(</= 11...0-0?!; 12.Bb3, "+/" )
12.bxc3 Nxc4; 13.Qa4+ Nd7; 14.Qxc4 Nb6;
{Diagram?}
The end of the column. 15.Qb5+ Qd7;
16.Qxd7+ Bxd7; 17.d6 Rc8;
18.0-0!?,
{Diagram?}
The most natural
move here - and also probably the safest.
*****
a). >/= 18.Bd2!,
"+/=" {Diagram?} {A.J.G.}
(I recommended this move many years ago.)
***
b). An often over-looked
possibility is that White can play Be3 here,
which also seems to allow a small
edge to the first player:
18.Be3 Rxc3; 19.Bxb6 axb6; 20.Kd2 Rc5;
21.Rhb1 b5!?;
22.a4! 0-0; {Box?
Diagram?}
Black probably felt this was pretty much forced.
(</= 22...bxa4?!; 23.Rxb7, "+/")
23.axb5 f6; 24.Ra7, "+/=" {Diagram?}
A. Minasian
- A. Shabalov;
/Minsk, RUS/1990 (38) (White won a nice game.);
***
c). Not
that convincing was: 18.Bf4!? Rxc3; 19.0-0 0-0;
20.Rfc1 Rd3;
21.Rd1 Ra3; 22.Bc1!? Ra4; 23.Rd4 Rxd4;
24.Nxd4 Rc8; 25.Bg5 h6;
26.Bf4 Rc4; 27.Rd1 Nd5; 28.Bg3 Nc3; 29.Rc1 Rxd4;
30.Rxc3 Bc6;
31.Rc2 Kf8; 32.Kf2 Ke8; 33.Ke3
Ra4; "=/+" {Diagram?}
Maybe White should not lose this position, but he did - in a long
opposite-colored Bishop ending.
M. Marovic - A. Shabalov; The U.S. Open.
Chicago, IL (USA)/ 1994 (50);
*****
18...Rxc3; "~"
{Diagram?}
MCO calls this
position as completely equal. ("=")
My analysis indicates that White
should probably retain
a slight advantage with Bb2,
"+/=" here.
IM E. Formanek -
GM A. Shabalov;
New York Open, NY; (USA) 1995.
[ See MCO-14; page # 163, column # 24, & also note # (s.). ]
Nunn gives this line as well, but
instead recommends that both
sides play: 18. Bd2, Bb5; and claims that Black has
good
compensation for the material.
*******
A line that is not to be recommended here is:
10...Bc5?!;
11.Bxc4!, "+/" {Diagram?}
and White is clearly better. (Damsky.)
]
**********
11.Qd4!,
{Diagram?}
A fairly
respected writer remarks that: "White can probably take the c4-pawn,
but he
correctly finds a stronger plan." - GM Andy
Soltis.
'!' - GM Andrew
Soltis.
(Other annotators have also awarded this move an exclam here as well.)
I personally like Qd4, and prefer it over the alternatives. But I would be
remiss
in my duties as an annotator if I did not point out that modern opening
theory
prefers the move, 11.Be2. (!)
(But I do not agree with all the
conclusions of some of the various opening
books here.)
The move ... Qd4 ...
leads to: "a nightmarish analytical smorgasbord." (!!)
- GM Larry
Christiansen, Robert Raingruber, and also Manuel Joeseph.
[The book: "The
Alekhine's Defense As White; The Four
Pawns Attack."
(c) 1988; The
Thinker's Press. ]
**********
[ Variation
# 1.)
Modern theory prefers Be2,
I.e., >/= 11.Be2 Bc5; {Diagram?}
Two different books say this is the best line for Black.
***
( Instead,
another game went: 11...Bb4!?; 12.Qd4 Bxf3;
13.Bxf3 0-0;
14.0-0 N8d7;
15.Qf4!? Nc5; 16.Qg3!? Kh8; 17.Bg5!? Qe8;
18.d6 f6!?;
19.exf6 gxf6;
20.Bh6
Rg8; 21.Qh4 Qg6?!; (Maybe - '?!')
{Diagram?}
This looks doubtful to me.
( It looks like Black had to play:
21...Bxc3; 22.bxc3 Qe5; 23.Rad1 Qxc3; 24.Bh5, "+/=" {Diag?}
White is clearly a lot better.
(Maybe - "+/") )
22.Nd5, "+/" {Diagram?}
White is
clearly better.
M. Nilsson - P. Andersen; /Bikuben/[A.J.G.]/ 1994
(36)
(White won without too many problems.)
)
***
12.Ng5!
Bf5; {Diagram?}
This is practically forced.
(12...Bxe2?!; 13.Qxe2, "+/" {Diagram?}
White has a near winning attack. (Nearly "+/-") )
13.Rf1 Bg6; 14.h4 h6; 15.h5!,
"+/" {Diagram?}
White has a very large edge.
Buker - Fleck; Germany, 1985.
[ See MCO-14; page # 163, column # 24, and note
# (r.). ]
(NCO also gives this line, but stops after 13.Rf1, "+/");
*****
Variation # 2.)
Some old
analysis from one of my notebooks went:
11.Bg5!? Bxf3?!;
{Diagram?} This is
bad. (Maybe - '?')
{Black should play ...Be7; or even ...Qc8.}
(Much better is: >/= 11...Be7; "~")
12.Bxd8 Bxd1; 13.Bxb6 axb6; 14.Rxd1 Nd7;
15.Bxc4 Nxe5;
16.Bb5+ Nd7;
17.d6 f6!?; 18.Nd5!, "+/" {Diagram?}
and White wins material. (Maybe
"+/-")
(But
the whole line is really on the level of an opening trap.
Black's 11th move is
simply terrible.);
*****
Variation # 3.)
White could also try: 11.Bxc4!? Nxc4;
12.Qa4+ Nd7; 13.Qxc4,
13...Bxf3; 14.gxf3 Nxe5;
15.Qe2, "+/=" {Diagram?}
White retains a small edge.
Walter Browne - Nicevsky; Rovinj Zagreb, 1970. ]
**********
11...Bxf3;
12.gxf3
Bb4!?; {Diagram?}
Many of my books say this move is best or forced,
but I am not 100%
certain of this.
[ Interesting is: 12...Nc6;
13.Qe4 Nb4; 14.e6, "~" {Diagram?}
White <supposedly> has a winning attack, but I do not see it!
{A.J.G.}
(Line by - GM Vlastmil Hort.)
(Maybe 14.d6!?, "+/=" instead?)
Or another line is: 12...N8d7!?; 13.d6!,
"+/=" {Diag?}
White is a little better. {A.J.G.}
]
13.Bxc4,
{Diagram?}
Is this forced? Or is it best?
[
13.Qg4!? Nxd5; 14.Qxg7? Rf8;
"~" {Diagram?}
The 'Thinker's Press' book on this game says
Black is nearly
winning here, but I do not believe it! {A.J.G.}
Hecht - M. Diesen; Solingen 1970.
(The book on this game by "The Thinker's Press,"
gives Qg4 a question mark.
('?')
But I think the real error was Qxg7. A.J.G.)
]
13...0-0;
('!') {Diagram?}
This is good, and very nearly forced in this position.
[ Worse for Black was: 13...Nc6?!;
14.Qe4 Nxc4; 15.dxc6 b5;
16.c7 Qc8;
17.Rg1, "+/" {Diagram?}
White is clearly much better here - close to winning.
]
14.Rg1! g6!; (TN?) {Diagram?}
(Theoretical Novelty??)
A very large improvement over previous master practice.
'!' - GM Andy Soltis.
***
GM Soltis makes a
terrible mistake in his annotations. He says here:
"Black knew the position
well - he had lost a game at Cacak, 1971 ..."
There are
TWO inaccuracies
in the above statement!
# 1.) The game was played in 1970, not 1971!
# 2.) Ljubojevic was WHITE in this game,
NOT Black!!
(See the note just below.)
***
[ Previously seen was: 14...Qc7!?;
('?!') 15.e6! f6!?; {Diagram?}
This is the natural
reaction, Black tries to close lines.
( 15...fxe6; 16.Bh6! e5; 17.Bxg7!! exd4; 18.Bxd4+ Kf7; 19.Rg7+ Ke8;
20.Rxc7, "+/" {Diag?} White is clearly much better.
(Maybe "+/-") )
16.Bh6! Qxc4?; {Diagram?} This is an error.
(The
following continuation was forced for Black: 16...g6[]; 17.Bb3 Bxc3+;
18.bxc3
Qd6; {Diag?} etc. But Black's game is pretty much hopeless,
perhaps why Black
chose not to play this!)
17.Rxg7+ Kh8; 18.Rg8+! Kxg8; 19.Qg1+,
{Diagram?}
and Black was quickly mated.
L. Ljubojevic - Honfi; Cacak, 1970. ]
15.Bg5!,
(Maybe - '!!') {Diagram?}
A fantastic move ... that leads to complications that
are nearly astronomical
in proportions. (White naturally wishes to exploit the
somewhat weakened
dark squares around the Black King.)
'!' - GM Jan Timman. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis.
[ White might still get an edge with the continuation:
15.Be3 Nxc4;
16.Qxc4 Bxc3+; 17.bxc3 Nd7; 18.Qd4,
"+/=" {Diag?}
and White looks a
little better than Black here.
Not as good is: 15.Bh6!? Nc6; 16.Qe4 Bxc3+!;
17.bxc3 Nxe5!, "=/+" {D?}
Black is (at least) a little better here.
]
15...Qc7;
(hmmm) {Diagram?}
GM Andrew Soltis notes that Black threatens to win a whole Rook.
(He
threatens both ...Qxc4; and also the skewer, ...Bc5.)
Black had also played
this entire line very quickly, so this must have
been a prepared variation
here.
[ 15...Be7 ]
16.Bb3!!,
(Maybe - '!!!/!!!!')
{Diagram?}
Surely one of the deepest and most profound sacrifices ever played.
***
<<
Paul Keres was among the witnesses who were stunned by this game.
He said White's 16th move, leading to the
sacrifice of a Rook, was
"a tremendous surprise, and during the game
it took me quite a while to
find the point of it."
No wonder this was considered the most beautiful game of the whole
tournament. >> - GM
Andrew Soltis. (The book: "The 100 Best.")
***
To
the above comments, I can only add that MANY MASTERS, (who were
present at the game); thought - quite simply - that Bronstein, who was
given
to nearly whimsical thoughts; had just blundered.
[ 16.Rg4!? N8d7; "~" ]
16...Bc5;
17.Qf4 Bxg1!?; {Diagram?}
Certainly this is the most natural move in this position?
(It is DEFINITELY the acid test of White's whole idea!)
Many
writers virulently criticized this move, and even awarded it a
question mark. ('?') They include several GM's annotating this game
for a Soviet Magazine, ('S.B.'); Zaitzev and Shashin, ('64');
The authors of the first edition of ECO, (many); and Kotov, Blackstock,
& Wade, in their (joint) book: "World Championship Interzonals,
1973."
But
as GM Jan Timman showed in his landmark book:
"The Art Of
Chess Analysis," this move might not only be decent,
it could very well be the best move for
Black!
**********
[ A postal game I played back in the
1980's went:
17...N8d7!?;
18.d6! Qc6; 19.0-0-0!!, {Diagram?}
This is an
improvement over Ne4, (GM H. Ree); which was the
move that was previously played
in this position. (19.Rg2!?)
19...Bxg1!?;
20.Rxg1 Qc5!?; 21.Re1 Rae8; 22.e6!!,
{Diag?}
A very brilliant move.
(Interesting was: 22.Kb1!?, with the
idea of Ne4 next.
Or White could play the line: 22.Be7!? Rxe7; 23.dxe7
Qxe7;
24.e6!, "+/=" {Diagram?}
- GM Jan Timman. )
22...fxe6; 23.Rxe6 Rxe6?!; {Diagram?} This is inferior.
***
a). Necessary (probably) was: 23...Rc8;
24.Re7+ Nc4; {Diag?}
This is forced.
(24...Kh8?; 25.Rxh7+ Kxh7; 26.Qh4+ Kg7; 27.Qh6#)
25.Qh4, "--->" {Diagram?}
White probably has a winning attack here. ("+/-")
b).
Really ugly, (for Black); is: 23...Rxf4?;
24.Rxe8+ Kg7;
25.Rg8#. (Mate.)
***
24.Bxe6+ Kh8?!; ('?') {Diagram?} This is a mistake.
(Black had to play:
>= 24...Kg7[]; 25.Bh6+ Kh8; 26.Bxf8, "+/-" {Diag?}
but White is still
winning. )
25.Qxf8+! Nxf8; 26.Bf6#. {Diagram?}
A.J. Goldsby - R. Timetkin;
Golden
Knights Postal Tournament, 1981 - '83.
This is a very pretty mate, but it is
not even original.
(I think I was following an old analysis someone did,
it
might have been by GM P. Keres.);
*****
Black could also try ...Re8 here: 17...Re8!?;
18.Bf6 N8d7; 19.Ne4! Nxe5!?;
20.Rxg6+!!,
{Diagram?} ... "with a
crushing attack." - GM Jan
Timman.
Marjanovic - Filipowicz; Yugoslavia, 1974. ]
**********
18.d6,
{Diagram?}
This looks to be best and/or nearly forced.
(It also opens the diagonal for the Bishop on b3, prevents ...f5, gains
some
space, and also gains a tempo as well.)
'!' - The Thinker's Press.
[ Ljubo was not afraid to repeat this
whole line, i.e., 18.Ke2? Qc5;
19.Rxg1?!
Qxg1; 20.Bf6 Qg2+; 21.Ke3!? Qxb2; 22.Kd3
N8d7;
23.Ne4 Rac8;
24.Qh6 Nxe5+; 25.Ke3 Rc3+; White Resigns,
0 - 1
F. Gheorghiu
- L. Ljubojevic; Manila, 1973. (25) ]
18...Qc8!?;
{Diagram?}
This was branded a mistake by some, but it certainly looks very
reasonable.
(It is hard to believe that Black - a whole Rook ahead - would have any
real
problems.)
"It
was very difficult to foresee that this was the wrong square for the Queen
here."
- GM Jan Timman.
GM
Jon Speelman - in his 1982 book, "Best Chess Games, 1970 -
1980,"
brands this move as an error. But as I have found several mistakes in his
analysis
of this game, all of his conclusions cannot be considered valid.
***
It
is time to evaluate this position:
# 1.) Material - Black is ahead nearly
a whole Rook, White only has one pawn
for the tower.
# 2.) Time - believe it or not, is
about even ... both pieces have about the same
number of pieces
developed.
# 3.) Force - Although both sides have
about the same number of pieces in the
field of play, White's
pieces co-operate and work together many times better
than their
counterparts.
#4.) Space - Both sides pieces control
approximately the same number of squares.
But White's pawn wedge in the
center translates to a great deal of protected
squares. These pawns act as an
umbrella, giving White a much greater freedom
of play in the center.
Other
factors that are VERY important in this position:
a.) White - since he can castle has
much better piece coordination, and this translates
into a very large initiative. (White will
be better able to generate threats over the
next few moves, and thus dictate and
control the way the play transpires.)
b.) The second player has a hard time
coordinating his pieces, and/or an ability to
find good squares. He will have special
difficulty getting his Q-side into real and
effective play.
c.) Especially significant are the
grossly weakened dark-square complex on the
Kingside. In some lines White threatens the
very simple, (but effective); Bf6
and Qh6 ... with a mating web.
d.) Because Black is so far ahead in
material, he should probably be looking for
any opportunity to return part of the point
advantage for a chance to get to
get his pieces to good posts.
***
AN
INTERESTING OBSERVATION:
One of the newest and latest programs I have is Nimzo 8.0
... from
ChessBase.
It thinks here for over 5 minutes - - - and considers this position to be
MUCH
better, ("/+"); for Black!! (January, 2003.)
[ Several major theoretical manuals
all give the line of:
>/= 18...Qc5!;
{Diagram?}
This is definitely the best
move here, according to opening theory.
19.Ne4! Qd4!; {Diagram?}
It is best too keep Black's strongest
piece centralized here.
( 18...Qc6?!; 19.e6!, "--->" ("+/-) )
20.Rd1! Qxb2!; "~" {Diagram?}
with continuing
complications.
(GM A. Soltis mentions this
possibility as well.)
Students of theory should study the critical game:
Moura
- Rinaldi; Correspondence Game, 1982/'83.
(The Informant has some very
interesting analysis of this game,
but it is too long to go into
here.)
A later game followed the following path: 21.e6!?,
{Diagram?}
This could be imprecise.
( >= 21.Rd2! "~") 21...N8d7!;
22.e7 Qxh2;
23.exf8Q+
Rxf8; 24.Qxh2!? Bxh2; 25.Nf6+ Kg7; 26.Nxd7!?
Nxd7;
27.Be7?!
Rb8; "/+" {Diagram?}
Black is clearly better ... and
went on to win shortly.
GM Y. Gruenfeld - GM L. Ljubojevic;
FIDE Interzonal Tournament;
Riga, LAT/ [A.J.G.] /1979
(37)
Once again we see a Ljubojevic success on either side of this whole
variation!
***
Black runs into problems after: 18...Qc6!?;
19.e6!, "--->" {Diagram?}
& White has a strong
attack. ]
19.Ke2!?,
{Diagram?}
An interesting idea by Bronstein. (But probably not the best move.)
Bronstein is just a little too unconcerned for the safety of his own King.
[ Shortly after the game one of the
participants pointed out the following line;
which seems to be a fair improvement
over the way the game was actually
played: >/= 19.0-0-0!
Bc5!?; {Diagram?} It is difficult to suggest any
real
improvements for Black here.
(19...Qc5!?; 20.e6 N8d7[]; 21.exf7+ Kg7;
22.Kb1! Qe5?!; 23.Rxg1!?, "+/=" (Maybe - "+/")
{Diagram?}
White is at least a little better here, in this position. - GM
J. Timman.)
20.e6! fxe6;
21.Qe5 Re8; 22.Bh6! Qd7; 23.Ne4, "+/"
{Diagram?}
White is clearly much better here, or
even winning.
(Maybe "+/-") [Analysis
by] - GM David Bronstein. ]
19...Bc5!?;
{Diagram?}
While this appears to be the natural reaction to White's ideas, it may be
a slightly (overly) materialistic way of handling the position.
"Black misses his last chance to make a fight of it." - GM Andy Soltis.
"This gains nothing." - GM Jan Timman.
[ The best line for Black was: >= 19...Qc5!;
- GM J. Timman.
20.e6
N8d7!; "=/+" {Diagram?} Black is clearly better
here.
(Maybe - "/+")
- GM A. Soltis.
(The analysis of the variants in one
book runs several columns!) ]
20.Ne4!?,
(Maybe - '!') {Diagram?}
GM A. Soltis makes no comment here, in this position.
But this is definitely the best move here.
"Now everything goes according to White's desires." - GM Jan Timman.
[ 20.Bh6!? ]
20...N8d7;
21.Rc1 Qc6; {Diagram?}
A casual observer might glance at this position ... and think the second
player has few problems.
(The
latest version of the program, "Crafty," thinks for several minutes
...
{w/44 MB RAM for the hash tables} ...
and says
BLACK is WINNING
this position!!!!!!!! Jan. 2003.)
22.Rxc5!!,
{Diagram?}
White - who must have been acting on intuition at this point - removes the
defender of Black's dark-square complex.
'!' - GM A. Soltis.
Soltis
only gives this move one exclamation point, but I feel that this move
definitely deserves two.
The
sea of complications - that both parties now find themselves nearly
drowning in - is vast ... and virtually bottomless.
(!!!)
"White
gets a proud Knight on f6 by means of this exchange sacrifice."
- GM Jan Timman.
[ 22.Kd1, or 22.Bh6!? ]
22...Nxc5;
23.Nf6+ Kh8; 24.Qh4 Qb5+; {Diagram?}
Black appears to be doing OK.
25.Ke3!,
(Maybe - '!!') {Diagram?}
"Despite (severe) time pressure and the huge material disequilibrium,
White has a mating attack." - GM
Andy Soltis.
"The crowning point to White's attacking play." - GM Jan Timman.
'!' - GM Jan Timman. '!' - GM Andrew Soltis. '!!' - Yakov Damsky.
I
wish to add that when I first went over this game, I was quite sure that
Black
would be to draw this game - due mainly to persistent threats to the White
King.
[ Not nearly as good is: 25.Kf2!?
Nd3+; 26.Kg2! Nf4+;
27.Bxf4,
"~" {Diagram?} - GM Andy Soltis. ]
25...h5;
26.Nxh5, ('!') {Diagram?}
Without this move, White's attack comes to a standstill.
[ 26.Qd4 Nxb3; "-/+" ]
26...Qxb3+!?;
{Diagram?}
Black said after the game, that he felt his 26th move was forced.
[ Two alternatives here were:
# 1.)
26...Qd3+; 27.Kf2 gxh5!?;
{Diagram?} This looks bad.
(Did Black have to play: 27...Ne4+!?; in this position? )
28.Bf6+, ("+/-") {Diagram?}
and mates. ( - GM A. Soltis.)
Or Black could try:
# 2.)
26...Nd5+!?; 27.Bxd5 Qd3+; 28.Kf2
Qc2+;
29.Kg3, ("+/-") {Diag?}
... "and wins." - GM A. Soltis.
]
***
White
now shows he knows the value of a Steinitzian King.
(GM A. Soltis also awards exclams to White's 28th and 29th moves.)
27.axb3 Nd5+; {Diagram?}
Virtually ALL of my students over the years predict that the White King
here
will retreat to the second row.
28.Kd4!,
{Diagram?}
"The King is a strong piece." (Timman.)
[ 28.Ke2!? ]
28...Ne6+;
29.Kxd5!, {Diagram?}
Bronstein seems to have found a new kind of chess ... and a new formula
for winning in chess: Simply march your King all the way across the board!
(The farther, the better?)
[ 29.Ke4; or 29.Kd3!? ]
29...Nxg5;
{Diagram?}
This is definitely forced.
[ Now White mates after:
29...gxh5!?;
30.Bf6+ Kg8; 31.Ke4!, "+/-" {Diagram?}
- GM
Andy Soltis. ]
30.Nf6+
Kg7; 31.Qxg5, {Diagram?}
White's attack has now yielded a material advantage to the first player.
[ Also good is: 31.Ng4!?, "+/-" ]
31...Rfd8;
32.e6 fxe6+; 33.Kxe6 Rf8; {Diagram?}
"Only White's time shortage kept Black from resigning."
- GM Andy Soltis.
(Black played this entire game in less than an hour!)
***
White's
technique now carefully gathers in the full point.
34.d7 a5; {Diagram?}
Black has a small threat.
35.Ng4
Ra6+; {Diagram?}
The QR finally enters the battle.
(Too little, too late.)
36.Kd5
Rf5+; {Diagram?}
Has White blundered?
37.Qxf5,
(!) 37...gxf5; 38.d8Q fxg4; 39.Qd7+ Kh6;
40.Qxb7! Rg6; 41.f4!, {Diagram?}
Black RESIGNS, his game is quite hopeless. (1 - 0)
***
An
amazing game of chess, one of the most complicated ever played in
history of the game.
(It certainly rivals games like "The Immortal
Game," or even Reti-Alekhine;
Baden-Baden, 1925.)
This
game was voted as the best and the most beautiful game of the entire
tournament. This included a panel of judges, and also, (I believe.); all
the
players as well.
This
game was also considered the best by the panel of judges for the
INFORMANT. (Now the panel of judges was increased from six to ten.)
***
Keres says of this encounter: "Truly a wonderful game."
Timman
calls this game: "A modern masterpiece."
(In a Dutch chess magazine.)
Another
well-known GM/writer/chess journalist says:
"The entire 11th round was eclipsed by the quite fantastic game,
Bronstein - Ljubojevic. In
this unbelievable encounter, the cagey veteran
Bronstein played with veritably youthful energy. In our time, few are
capable
of playing such a game. There can be no doubt that this game will be
awarded THE First Brilliancy Prize!" - GM
E. Gufeld.
(Dozens
of other annotators have also praised this game. A group of editors
for the Soviet Magazine, '64' named this game as being: ... "one of
the five
best games played in the last 50 - 75 years.")
My
own opinion is that this immortal game has got to be (EASILY!!!) in the
100 best games of the last 250 years!
(GM Andy Soltis ranks this as game # 41 {!!!} of the whole of The 20th Century.)
*****
An
interesting footnote was that - after leading the tournament - Ljubo
virtually
collapsed after losing this key game. Bronstein, on the other hand,
finished
very strongly ... after a somewhat average start; and almost qualified for
the
Candidates Matches.
***
(Historical
footnote.) The tournament of the Interzonal for Petropolis, 1973
was one of the strongest ever held, at least in my opinion. The field was
a true
"Who's who?" of nearly all of the best players in the world of that
period of time in
chess.
The
field included, aside from the two players in this game, the following
participants:
GM Paul Keres, (Estonia); GM Yefwim Geller, (U.S.S.R.);
GM Lajos Portisch, (Hungary); GM Vlastmil Hort, (Czech);
GM Samuel Reshevsky,
(USA); GM V. Savon, (U.S.S.R./Ukraine);
GM Lev Polugaevsky, (U.S.S.R.); GM Borislav Ivkov, (Yugoslavia);
GM Henrique Mecking, (Brazil); GM Vassily Smyslov, (U.S.S.R.);
GM Oscar Panno, (Argentina); GM Florin Gheorghiu, (Romania);
and GM Peter Biyiases, (Canada).
Most of the above names need no introduction or explanation to real chess fans. A few are the true, real super-greats of chess. Savon was almost 2600 at that time, and one of the best in the world. (He won the Championship of the USSR in 1971, clear 1st.) The Romanian Gheorghiu I know real well, I played in several U.S. Opens where he competed also. A very young Mecking won this event to establish himself as one of the new super-stars of chess.
***
Another interesting footnote: As recently as the year 2000, I analyzed this game with a student. He had the latest versions of ChessMaster, (and a couple of other programs); running on a brand new computer. [His perception was that chess was solved, and the best program would {quickly} find the best plans. He based this on the fact that he had read somewhere that computers could already defeat 99% of all chess players.] Anyway, we spent all day one day analyzing this game. The computer - REPEATEDLY - failed to find the best line ... or even anything close to it!! (A point to mull over, and meditate upon.)
****************************************************************************************
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I literally consulted over 20 different books to annotate this game. Two
books on
tactics also spend several pages examining the key lines.
(Quite a few of the
books I used are indicated in the various comments, notes
and the sub-variations.)
But
my main guide for this Herculean effort was the book:
"The 100 Best." (The 100 Best
Games of The 20th Century, Ranked.)
By GM Andrew Soltis.
[ (c) 2000; McFarland Books. ]
I
also referred to the book:
"The Art Of Chess Analysis,"
by GM Jan Timman.
[ (c) 1980, R.H.M. Press. ]
(This book contains like 15 pages of detailed, double-column analysis of this
game.)
I
later referred to the book:
"Chess Brilliancy," ('250 Historic Games from The
Masters');
by Iakov (Yakov) Damsky.
I
also have many books and pamphlets on this opening. I used these as well
as
MCO, NCO, ECO, etc. I consulted several different issues if the book series
known
as: "The Informant." I also have a book on this tournament, (in
Spanish); and I
consulted this as well.
MCO
= "Modern Chess Openings, 14th Edition,"
by GM Nick de Firmian.
[ (c) 1999 by the author. {ND} Published by David McKay books, a
division
of Random House. ]
***
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby I.
1 - 0
(Code initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
This
is not the original version of this game, I have modified it slightly for my web
page.
If you would like a copy of this page for your own personal study, please contact
me.
FYI
I have been working on this game (off-and-on) for several months.
It has become a running gag between myself and my wife.
"When you will make an end of it?" "When I am
finished!"
(See the classic movie, "The Agony and the
Ecstasy," with Charleton Heston and Rex Harrison.)
Page
first posted on my web site in December, 2002
(Page last updated:
Sunday; June
01, 2003.)
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my "Downloads" Home Page.
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my "Downloads" Annotated Games (# 2) Page.
Click
HERE
to go to, (or return to); my "Downloads" page
on Bronstein
- Ljubojevic.
(Re-play.)
Click HERE to go to, (or return to); my "GeoCities" HOME PAGE.
Click
HERE
to go to, (or return to); my "GeoCities" page on
"The
Best (All-Time) Chess Games."
(Or click the 'BACK' button on your web browser.)
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I
Copyright
(c) A.J. Goldsby, 1978 - 2006.
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2007. All
rights reserved.