Yes, you should, BG, because no literary writer could have come up with the final note to the Petrosian-Gligoric game. That was pure Bronstein.
Now i know why he made that fatal blunder which could have given him the title.
Bronstein offers a lot to chessplayers, but his views as expressed in the interview referenced by the OP seem overstated and whiny to me. "Chess has lost its creative component... all solutions out of a situation have long been known..." Really? The world's not like you wanted it to be?
I've always treasured the famous tournament book he wrote (the McKay edition is my favorite cover of all time) but Soltis somewhat panned it in favor of the one by Najdorf.
Thanks Batgirl for posting this. Got me interested in the man and so I ordered one of this books. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". Have just begun to go through it and it's quite interesting. I wish someone would write a biography of the man. He seems to have been quite a character and I believe a biography would be a fascinating read.
Thanks Batgirl. Add me to the list of those who are in favor of your "romantic" agenda. I adore the spirit of the romantics, whether it be music, art or chess.
My theory is that once you have "professionals" taking over the sport, the bottom line becomes winning at all costs. As I lose my taste for victory, the game becomes a lot more fun.
Got me interested in the man and so I ordered one of this books. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". Have just begun to go through it and it's quite interesting.
Unfortunately, that qualifies as one of the worst chess books I have ever read. Here's my review from goodreads:
A major major disappointment. Seriously, this is probably the worst book I've ever seen from a great player (and I don't even exempt Reshevsky's offerings from that remark).I guess I should've realized from the beginning that I was in for a letdown with the early chapter of advice to beginners. Then I came across a chapter of games with one position from each diagrammed...and not really much of an explanation about any of it (and certainly no annotations or words of wisdom about the rest of the moves). Later on there were a bunch of games "with diagrams" (which apparently were deemed so illuminating that they would take the place of notes). And we finished up with a slew of "picturesque" games (although how that adjective applied to some of them was beyond all conjecture on my part). I'm not sure what was supposed to be so terribly eye-catching about his 120-move queen ending loss to Alexander, for example.The only really usable section of this book was the 50 annotated games. But even here (as throughout) Bronstein comes off like a thorough-going space cadet. Seriously, he sounds like he's just tumbled out of Spicoli's van, and you're barely able to discern his vague outline through a haze of smoke while he coughs up his latest imponderable dictum (no doubt about it, the man definitely puts the "sage" in "sagely").In addition to all of this, his snide little ongoing spat with Botvinnik infuses the pages and belies his whole message of Love of Chess and Being Above All Competition, one which he is so obviously trying to embody. Truthfully, I would've given this godawful mess 1 star, but a collection of 200 Bronstein games (even if they are largely unannotated) has to be worth something anyway...
Yes, all you have to do is know the openings, and then play without a single mistake afterwards.
Well... Carlsen doesn't even bother with openings much.
Ok, so all you have to do is play without a single mistake. Oh, and it's very easy, just put your pieces in the middle
I do agree professional chess isn't about creativity. But as the interviewer pointed out neither is soccer. You practice and do drills and attempt to preform well in competition. I'm not sure why he was so dismissive about this. That the general public may not know that chess isn't some brilliant game isn't so important.
He really seems to be off on his own romantic (and self-indulgent) cloud...at least to judge from a lot of the stuff in Sorcerer.
"puts the sage in sagely" lol
You are nuts. He married a wife that was 30 years younger and stayed loyal to his beliefs and character against the tide. It is normal to get the help of a real writer and that is not relevant at all.
He didn't get help, someone else wrote the book and Soviet Authorities slapped his name on it. He constantly whined about his 51 championship match dropping hints without proof that he felt he had to throw the match.
In an interview with Antonio Gude in 1993, Bronstein states:
Most of the nice words and elegant expressions in the book overall are the work of Vainstein, who writes very well… Of course the analysis and technical concepts are mine, as are the views on my rivals, but it may be said that a large part of the text is by Vainstein.
That's a far cry from "slapped his name on it," a rather sloppy and troll-like accusation, Dean. By the way, congratulations on breaking the USCF 1200 barrier. Of course that was nearly ten years ago and you haven't improved since. If you had actually read and absorbed some of the lessons from Bronstein you could have been 1300 by now, maybe even higher.
How very immature you are. I broke the 1200 barrier before puberty many years ago and have been above 1900 USCF for more than 10 years. Makes your modest accomplishments in chess look quite insignificant right?
Yes, it reminds a bit of Fischer's complaints. Both were great players but in their retirement they sounded very bitter and seemed to find it hard to accept that other players now were young and creative as they once had been themselves. "Chess has lost its creative component", "chess ceased to be a game", "formerly, chess was entertainment to people of culture", "in the past, chess was sort of intriguing", "when computers arrived, it finally killed everything", "all solutions ... have long been known", the development "rules chess out as a game of intelligence" etc.
So far I've really enjoyed "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".
It begins with some background information and then goes right in to "40 games with explanation". After each game he writes approximately a half page explaining the salient points of the contest and what one should learn from it.
This chapter is followed by "50 games with comments". Where he goes over the games in a more in depth manner. Not move by move, but certainly in more detail.
This is followed by the section titled "60 games with diagrams". And yes, I can see why you weren't enthralled with that section. It's simply 60 games with 4 or 5 diagrams per contest. I intend to play through them, but there isn't any commentary from Bronstein to lead one through that section.
Then comes the "70 picturesque games" section. This time there is only one diagram per game. I presume that is the board position he believes is picturesque. We shall see. A little disappointing he didn't go in to more detail in this area.
Then comes a section I'm looking forward to. A brief Q and A with the man on his 75th birthday followed by "My Experiences with Computers". Where he goes over some of his games with our electronic friends in a decent amount of detail.
Not that I'm an expert on chess studies or anything. But to me it's been informative and enjoyable reading to this point, and I'm not sorry I bought it.
For a player with experience it may not be the best of tomes. However, for a guy like me that hasn't studied chess much, I expect I'll learn a great deal from this effort. At least I hope so. Peace man....
Wrong, LOL. I already looked up your rating - you are Dean R Jackson, formerly or currently of Fredonia AZ. You last played USCF in 2007, so you are not 1900. You have never been close to 1900. You peaked in the 1200's. In your mind you might imagine yourself to be 1900 because maybe you played a local player and got lucky once. Or you are just lying. You have nothing to brag about (pre-pubescent 1200 players are anything but rare). Re: your wimpy attempt to attack me, FYI I haven't been rated as LOW as USCF 1900 in 40 years. So, even if your fantasy rating is true, I still wipe your ass off the board. The real point, though, is that your posts about Bronstein are just stupid.
You really must be a cretin or 12 if you think I am using my real name. Last played USCF in 2011.
It would also surprise me that anybody with a real chess culture would write such things about a real chess hero.
thanks batgirl. Its a beautiful interview, not gloomy. Its optimistic, about the possibility of chess being taken by chessplayers to a new heyday of romantic creativity. Not by the professionals; but the amateurs.
This interview also helps me articulate why I hated a recent conversation on chess forums about how chess improves intellect; I could only tell jokes on the forum; I couldn't take any of it seriously. As if people should play chess because its 'good for them' like a vitamin. Take some vitamin C, walk twenty minutes, and do a half hour of chess a day and you won't get Alzheimers. Oh bother!
batgirl, keep pushing your romantic chess agenda. You have good company, and you know who your company is better than I do, the 19th century romantics and a few 20th c. romantics and dissidents.
if that was true about chess, walking and vitamin C, what in the world would be wrong with that? I find your attitude here hard to understand.