Concatenation-Polgar and Bronstein Do An Uncanny Rook Maneuver.

Concatenation-Polgar and Bronstein Do An Uncanny Rook Maneuver.

| 13

Concatenation: a series of interconnected things or events. 

What is quantum entanglement?

Quantum entanglement is a bizarre, counterintuitive phenomenon that explains how two subatomic particles can be intimately linked to each other even if separated by billions of light-years of space. 

Despite their vast separation, a change induced in one will affect the other. 

In 1964, physicist John Bell posited that such changes can be induced and occur instantaneously, even if the particles are very far apart. Bell's Theorem is regarded as an important idea in modern physics, but it conflicts with other well-established principles of physics. For example, Albert Einstein had shown years before Bell proposed his theorem that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Perplexed, Einstein famously described this entanglement phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance."


Hi all, I hope you have peace and joy in your life.

I am captivated by common patterns in games that might be from different eras......

What inspired this blog post is a common pattern between GM Judit Polgar and my favorite player of all time, GM David Bronstein.

The pattern is Rd6-c6, although the effect is different in each position. Even so, the move Rc6-d6 had a decisive effect in both games. So here we go!

The following game, Bronstein-Browne, Raykjavik 1990, has a great story behind it. Bronstein recalls:

"This was my second tournament in Iceland and I hope to play many more as I will never forget the cordial hospitality which I experienced during my stay in 1974. To postpone a round in a tournament for one day in order to celebrate my 50th birthday can only happen in a real chess community! Many years ago Fridrik Olafsson told me that in Icalend chess froms part of the National Heritage, but probably he was somewhat modest. I think in Iceland it is part of everyday culture!

There are two methods to play a game of chess from the initial position. You may either follow book recommendations and wait for some new move prepared during homework by your opponent, or you yourself may discover a novelty.

I myself prefer the second way, making new moves, not necessarily found by means of deep calculation but mostly by intuition. 

I try to deviate from routine positions, even if those deviations are not very promising. I think that it is necessary to use one's imagination to find new ways and to bring life into a chess struggle.

However, this game is just the opposite. I was playing a well-known line because during my home preparation I had convinced myself that it was perfectly playable."

The next game, McDonald-Bronstein, 1995, is significant in that Bronstein takes the Black side of this variation, and finds an improvement!

Bronstein gives us the background to this game:

"This tournament was held in the office building of the sponsor. The conditions of play were ideal, the light through the glass roof was perfect and, as there were no spectators, it was very quiet. It was organized in cooperation with the town council of Wrexham and I received a personal invitation from the Mayor to play here. When Nigel Davies, who initiated this tournament, became a grandmaster, interest in chess in Wales increased very much and there is hope that in a few years from now, this tournament will be more and more popular. It might even follow in the tradition of Hastings, when in addition to the main group, there will be other groups at the same time.

The hospitality of the members of the local chess club was excellent and I have very good memories about my stay in the nice city of Wrexham. For me it was a little difficult to play here as during all my life it was a tradition to play, not only for ourselves, but also for the enjoyment of the audience, like sportsmen and actors. Therefore, I was not inspired to play with my usual fighting spirit. Up to this game I had lost one game and made several draws and, as this one was played near the end of the tournament, I did not want to conclude the tournament without a single win. So when I came to play I was very motivated and chose the Sicilian instead of my favorite French Defense. This game was also important for my partner as he was chasing his first grandmaster norm.As we both play for the same team, Charlton Chess Club, in the London League, we felt the necessity to play a game in the best British tradition of fair play. Although Neil lost this game, he liked it very much and he himself gave very interesting and deeply analysed comments in "Chess" and "British Chess Magazine", the two leading British chess publications. I am convinced that he has learned from this game how to keep his concentration and survive the tension and it must have helped him for future tournaments. As far as I know, Neil has made the required grandmaster norms within a very short time and he will become a grandmaster after the next FIDE congress.

What about me? Of course I was pleased to receive the prize for best game of the tournament and I also like this game very much.

Here is the game by Larsen to which Bronstein is referring to:

Now, the question is, where did Larsen get his idea from? When I saw the Larsen game, I knew: from this Pillsbury-Lasker game!

I love seeing patterns in common between Grandmasters of different eras, and am enchanted by one geometric pattern can inspire one player form someone else's games.
I thought I was being a bit eccentric in this, but then I noticed my hero, Bronstein, also does the same!

Here is the game Bronstein-Shamkovich, USSR Ch 1961....

Bronstein's comment after 24.g4...."In the game Alekhine-Euwe, Amsterdam 1936, Alekhine defended his Knight on f5 with the same move."

Here is the game Alekhine-Euwe, Amsterdam 1936.....