David Bronstein – One of the Greatest Attackers in Chess History

David Bronstein – One of the Greatest Attackers in Chess History
Learning the Art of Attack through Bronstein’s Games

Perhaps today’s generations do not know much about David Bronstein (1924–2006). When it comes to his results, his rise began immediately after the Second World War. From being virtually unknown, he suddenly took third place at the 1945 USSR Championship, which was nothing short of sensational. From then on, success followed success: he won the 1948 Interzonal, shared first place at the USSR Championship that same year, tied for first with Boleslavsky at the 1950 Candidates tournament in Budapest, and then defeated him in a playoff match to qualify for a World Championship match.

Against Botvinnik, Bronstein drew the 1951 World Championship match 12–12. In practical terms, he and Botvinnik shared first place—they were, officially, the two best players in the world at the time (in an era without ratings). Few players have ever produced such an impressive string of results. Bronstein would remain in the world’s elite for a long time, highlighted by his magnificent victory at the 1955 Interzonal in Gothenburg.

But results alone do not fully explain Bronstein’s significance. What interests us most is Bronstein, the creator, the chess genius. According to the leading theoretician IM Vladimir Vukovic, Bronstein was the true heir of Alekhine’s legacy. I personally agree completely with this view. In this and in the following texts, we will focus on one of his greatest strengths—attacking play (previously I examined the attacking mastery of Paul Keres).

Although there are general principles of conducting an attack (control of the center, mobilizing as many pieces as possible, weakening the opponent’s king position, etc.), every player with a distinctive style (and, according to Emanuel Lasker, players of master strength and above invariably possess their own style) has a characteristic way of carrying out attacks. Studying the games of the great masters is therefore immensely rewarding, both for our own development and for the sheer aesthetic pleasure it brings.

When we speak of David Bronstein, we can say that his style was simply unique. Some have called him “Tal before Tal,” though I personally disagree with that description. For me, Bronstein was simply Bronstein. Unlike all of his illustrious predecessors (and there is no doubt he belonged among them), Bronstein was willing to take far greater risks. In this sense, one might indeed compare him to Alekhine in the period 1929–1946.

Attacking the King Stuck in the Center

While delaying castling is generally dangerous against any strong opponent, against Bronstein it was especially perilous. The reason is simple: Bronstein’s ingenuity allowed him to find original attacking ideas with remarkable ease. Even when these ideas were not strictly the “best,” in practice they were extraordinarily difficult to refute. For this first article on Bronstein’s attacking skills, I have chosen three representative games.

The first two games are linked by their opening: the French Defense. The first was played in 1947 at a minor tournament against a weaker opponent. Perhaps for that reason, the theoretical community paid little attention to it—least of all Szabo, who would later fall victim to the same system.

After the Tarrasch move 3.Nd2, Black has many replies. In those days, and occasionally still today, 3…Nc6 was fashionable. Bronstein once wrote that he had “refuted” this line—a slight exaggeration. It is true that the variation with 6…f6 has fallen out of fashion, but it was hardly refuted by these two games alone. What matters is Bronstein’s energetic play. He never hesitated to sacrifice material in order to seize the initiative. His move 10.c4, designed to open lines against the black king, may not have been objectively best, but it was certainly the most unpleasant. Black faltered, and Bronstein went on to win in elegant fashion (although at one point he had an even quicker and more beautiful finish).

The second game in this line was a far more serious matter. It was played at a critical stage of the Interzonal, where Szabo was leading the field while Bronstein was trailing behind.

Bronstein later claimed that Szabo had been unaware of the earlier game. Personally, I suspect (though I have no proof) that Szabo may indeed have known of it, and had prepared the novelty 10…dxc4. Instead of the strongest move 12.Be3, Bronstein chose the less precise but still very uncomfortable 12.exf6—perhaps the move that actually decided the game! It is possible that Szabo had not analyzed this continuation thoroughly, and his reply 12…Qxf6 proved inadequate. Bronstein then displayed tremendous imagination: the strong sequence 13.dxc5 and, in particular, the brilliant 16.Rad1! were enough to bring him a spectacular victory.

Games between Bronstein and Geller were always fascinating. The one we now turn to is of particular significance. Geller was renowned as both a theoretical expert and a formidable attacker. Bronstein, however, chose the modest 3.Bb5 in the opening—most likely with the idea of sidestepping heavy theory (though he himself was a fine theoretician) and steering the game into creative channels.

And indeed, the game was highly original and creative. It is somewhat surprising that Geller accepted the pawn with 9…Qxe4. Already Nimzowitsch, in My System, had advised that one should seize a central pawn whenever possible, even at some risk. Yet here the danger was all too obvious: his king would come under direct fire.

B. S. Vainshtein, Bronstein’s friend and trainer, once described him well: when most players are a pawn down, they tend to seek ways to return material quickly, or subconsciously play with less confidence. Bronstein was the opposite—when behind in material, he seemed to double his energy and play twice as strongly. This game is a fine illustration. Although far from flawless (Bronstein’s 11.Re1 was not ideal, and Geller responded inaccurately with 11…d5), it remains a highly instructive game for understanding how to attack an uncastled king.

All the games in this article, as well as those in future installments, are annotated with a perspective slightly different from what one finds in other sources. Be that as it may, they fully deserve study. The attentive reader will both deepen his understanding and derive great enjoyment from them.

To be continued…