David Bronstein, One of the Greatest Attackers in Chess History, Part 4

David Bronstein, One of the Greatest Attackers in Chess History, Part 4

Learning the Art of Attack through Bronstein’s Games, Part 4

For those who missed or wish to revisit the previous three parts, here are the links:

Bronstein 1
Bronstein 2
Bronstein 3

In the previous installment, we asked ourselves: how dangerous is it to keep the king in the center? Of course, the answer is that it is hazardous — yet chess is such a game, and it often demands courage. At the highest levels, courage is almost always essential. The days when one could win a game without taking risks are long gone.

The Attacking Side Keeps the King in the Center While the Opponent Castles

Such a situation is quite rare in practice, since usually the king in the center is the one in danger. However, when it comes to the “resourceful David,” everything is possible — absolutely everything.

The game we will examine on this theme is Bronstein–Ljubojević, played in 1973 at the Interzonal Tournament, when Bronstein was long past his competitive prime. It is one of the most famous games of that period, and it even won first prize in the Chess Informant Best Game of the Half-Year competition.

The game has been analyzed by many — from Keres, Timman, and Vasiukov to Kasparov, Vainstein, and, of course, Bronstein himself. Modern analysis, naturally, reveals that there were quite a few inaccuracies. But that is neither new nor particularly important. In complex positions, errors are inevitable.

The game is of particular interest for our topic — the attack on the king — from one very interesting perspective: what to do with our own king when launching an attack? Can he get in the way? The answer is clear: many games have been lost solely because of the poor placement of the attacking side’s king. This could easily have happened in this game as well.

Beyond the chess aspect, there is also a strong psychological background here. Ljubojević started the tournament energetically. He was among the leaders (together with Mecking), and luck seemed to be on his side: his opponent — our hero, Bronstein — entered a line that Ljubojević had already played several times, both as White and as Black. On top of that, Ljubojević introduced a theoretical novelty, while Bronstein, by his own admission, had no idea what had been played before. A double-edged position arose, requiring great precision from both sides. Let us look at the first part of the game:

After just 14 moves, the position became so complicated that it was impossible to assess it except intuitively. Bronstein played 15.Bg5!, introducing the idea of sacrificing an entire rook.

At this moment, the question arises for the first time: which king is actually safer? The uncastled White king, or the castled Black one? In fact, both are potentially in danger, but in this concrete position, White’s monarch is the safer of the two.

The next move, 16.Bb3? was long evaluated as an excellent continuation, but in reality, it leads to a completely unclear position. According to modern analysis, 16.Be2 was stronger — a move nearly impossible to find on the board.

In this phase, Ljubojević played both brilliantly and quickly. His move 17...Bg1! deserves particular praise. On the surface, everything appears fine for Black: he has an extra rook, his king seems relatively safe, and, more importantly, his opponent had only five minutes left to reach move 40 — while Ljubojević had spent just ten minutes!

So what could go wrong? Only one thing — his opponent was the great David, most dangerous precisely in such situations.

Already in the next move, playing too hastily, Ljubojević erred with 18...Qc8?. Instead, 18...Qc5 would have maintained equality after precise play from both sides.

Let us now look at the second part of the game:

And now we reach the critical position for our theme: what to do with the king?
With only five minutes left on the clock, Bronstein decides to keep his king in the center and plays 19.Ke2?, which actually turns out to be a mistake. The correct continuation was 19.0-0-0, which would have led to a winning position. As it happened, Ljubojević could have won the game by playing 19…Qc5!. However, following the inertia of the tense situation (a common psychological error in such moments!), Ljubojević continued to move quickly and played 19…Bc5?, a move that loses the game. From this point onward, Bronstein played flawlessly. Special attention should be paid to the moves 22.Rxc5! and 26.Nxh5!—the latter is not particularly difficult to find, yet it deserves an exclamation mark for its elegance.

A fantastic intuitive (chaotic) game! Bronstein played many games of this kind, some of which we will examine in future installments of this blog. And what about Ljubojević? He became so demoralized that he played rather weakly for the remainder of the tournament—and not only that. He never managed to qualify for the Candidates’ Matches, even though at one point he was ranked third on the FIDE rating list.

*****

Before we move on to the next section, let us say a few words about David Bronstein’s activity as a chess teacher and writer.

Bronstein was not only a great player—he was also a remarkable communicator of chess artistry, through the annotations of his games, his lessons, and his books. And, much like his games, his books were original. His first work, The International Grandmasters’ Tournament, might appear to be a standard tournament book—but it is not. His main idea was to write a book about the middlegame, using exclusively the games from the 1953 Zurich Tournament. Of course, he succeeded brilliantly: generations of players have learned chess wisdom from this masterpiece. Other notable works include The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Self-Tutor of Chess, and 200 Open Games.

Let us quote Garry Kasparov: “After Tarrasch and Nimzowitsch, he was the greatest popularizer of the game. At the same time, he was an innovator—the author of many modern ideas, such as rapid and blitz chess with the addition of seconds after each move, and even the alteration of the starting position of the pieces. I believe that, had he become World Champion, the ‘Fischer clock’ and ‘Fischer chess’ would have been known as the ‘Bronstein clock’ and ‘Bronstein chess.’”

*****

Attack on the King in Same-Side Castling

When the king castles, especially on the kingside, he is usually considered relatively safe. Conducting an attack against a castled king requires special mastery — and when it comes to Bronstein, we can say that no opposing king was ever truly safe. Bronstein was a great master of SUDDEN STRIKES – positions could collapse instantly, in a single blow.

Within the game we are now examining, we shall also look at three additional games.
In our first game, we see the Caro–Kann Defence, the line considered calm, with 4…Nd7. In the main game we are studying, against Zamikhovsky, Bronstein chose the solid 5.c3. Of particular interest is 5.Ng3, which we shall examine in the analysis. There we will see two examples.

After the natural 5…Ngf6 (that was the point of 4…Nd7, so as not to compromise the pawn structure), Bronstein played 6.Nc3 in his game against Kotov (Moscow 1945). This move gives White no real advantage, yet the game itself is of particular interest. After several mutual inaccuracies, we finally reach White’s 21st move — and as we already noted, Bronstein was a master of POWERFUL SURPRISE BLOWS. Let the reader enjoy the final, 21st move of this miniature.

Throughout his long career, Bronstein practically played every opening (a rare occurrence — most players specialize in a few systems for life), and he employed this “quiet” Caro–Kann line several times as Black as well. His game against Shianovsky (1963), following 5.Ng3 Ngf6 is discussed in our commentary. In this game, we step slightly outside our main topic, observing counterplay and defensive technique — both executed by Bronstein with great mastery. The game is highly complex and deserves careful study.

The third game included in our notes is Bronstein–Vasiukov, Kiev 1964. Bronstein exerted long-term pressure on both flanks, and only near the end (likely in mutual time trouble) did he obtain a decisive advantage. It is particularly interesting to see how he gradually converted his positional edge into victory.

In the main game, after several moves, Black — aiming to prevent the attacking Ng5 — played 13…h6.

A crucial question arises: with h6, Black indeed controls the g5-square — but has he truly prevented Ng5? Bronstein’s answer was no, and he played it immediately: 14.Ng5!.
Analysis shows that capturing the knight would be dangerous. Since he cannot eliminate this troublesome piece, Black must now play with utmost precision.

Such positions are particularly perilous — Boris Gelfand, one of the great masters who, like Bronstein, came very close to the world title, calls them “the zone of error.” That means the probability of a mistake is significantly higher than in normal positions.

Bronstein’s opponent faltered, choosing the seemingly natural 14…Rf8 — a move that, according to analysis, is a decisive mistake. In the next few moves, we witness the fantastic dance of the knights — they leap freely onto squares that should have been under control!

We reach a critical position where the two White knights dominate the board. Bronstein then seals the game with the quiet but crushing move 15.f5!! — the only winning move. From that point on, he plays with precision, achieving yet another brilliant attacking victory.

A truly remarkable attacking game, characterized by sudden and decisive blows.

To be continued…