Descending Olympus

How he was seen in 1950...

my bad batgirl , but cc should have paid you lol , 

*However I strongly protest with lawsuits etc... The aforementioned link on Rossolimo was posted by me

For help on how to write quality content please see articles like the following:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/football-week-three-quarterbacks-chess

https://www.chess.com/article/view/james-holzhauer-chess-jeopardy

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-sports-plays

https://www.chess.com/article/view/overrated-chess-players

David gave an interview in 2003 to the Russian Ogoniok com. He was very bitter about the state of affairs in modern chess. Having lost its creative and artistic elements, chess became hostage of Botvinnik's Soviet school of chess (basically focusing on studying openings), then introduction of metalic m*orons (in which Botvinnik also took an important part) which finally killed the elite chess and brought  it to its terminal stage.

Here are a few excerpts from the interview you can find in full on my blog (not a perfect translation to be sure, yet good enough for you to see Bronstein's view on modern chess)

STAKHOV: What is the meaning of modern chess?

BRONSTEIN: Just to take control over sixteen unoccupied central squares, the two central horizontals. Art of chess has long ago been reduced to a struggle for space. So following that logic, he who knows how to take up and use space is a chess pro, while he who doesn’t is an amateur.

STAKHOV: Chess players are so smart, with a stunning intellect and you think the meaning of chess lies only in these squares?

BRONSTEIN: Chess has lost its creative component. It is no more the game it used to be fifty years ago. The primacy of the struggle for space has led to the fact that chess ceased to be a game. Formerly, chess was entertainment to people of culture who played it in their free time. After chess has been reduced to a mere struggle for space, culture is no more relevant.

STAKHOV: But how about the “theater” of chess pieces?

BRONSTEIN: You may watch an interesting theatrical performance, or perhaps you leave the theater after a few minutes. In the past chess was sort of intriguing, pieces somehow get engaged and performance begins. Each actor puts forward his plan, mounts challenge, shows boldness. But only the result is important now. The relationship between chess players have turned into a relationship between boxers before a fight. They both stage various acts of psychological intimidation. Most importantly, everything the leading chess players have to study to get there has long been known in the special literature.
.
.
.
STAKHOV: So where did the art of chess go?

BRONSTEIN: The art apparently existed before Botvinnik introduced the system for preparation in chess in his 1936 article. The Soviet chess school was, after Botvinnik, based on research. What did they research? The opening.
.
BRONSTEIN: They say that Soviet school of chess is the best, but I don’t think so.

STAKHOV: But it is still true, if you look at results…

BRONSTEIN: Well it all began in 1945 when we played the match with the US. And won it. Do you know how come that we won? We studied the openings. And we didn’t give them the chance to get out of the opening. We beat them on their half of the board. They didn’t get off the ground.
.
BRONSTEIN: Yes, but that was uninteresting to the audience! In chess, like in the theater, there should be lively play, not clash of strategies. Actors do not go on stage to do the drill. The audience will chase them out. They should perform a play. Likewise, the chess players should be playing, not going over the same lines over and over again.

Here is another chess history gem, listing "the 12 most interesting" players in the history of the game. It turns out that Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen are the three most interesting players ever. Nakamura is the 7th most interesting player ever, Caruana the 11th :-)

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-12-most-interesting-chess-players-ever

One could maybe imagine Spielmann, Blackburne, Pillsbury, Keres, Sultan Khan, Bronstein or guys like that? Some would maybe mention Nezhmetdinov or Charousek. No, Caruana and Nakamura are more "interesting" :-) And what makes for example Anand and Kramnik more "interesting" than Lasker?

But there are many facts to learn: There is no denying that Caruana is one of the most compelling chess players in history, Capablanca absolutely destroyed his contemporaries during his reign as World Champion (hmm New York 1924, Moscow 1925, first title defense...), Tal was easily the most brilliant and creative attacking player ever, etc.

OK, articles like these are not to be taken too seriously of course, but they do feel a bit, well, shallow...

Yes this is an excellent book. This type of chess bboks is very rare/

O dear!  I apologize.  I went right to the comments to rerread what I was looking for and at first I thought I was in this blog: Art vs. Machine, Soul vs. Calculation but then I realized I was in the Rossolimo blog. I guess I got all my wires crossed from juggling too may things at once (don't you just love a mixed metaphor?).  I'll change the text to reflect the reality.

A chance for me for self advertising

It was written by chess.com's own Fluffmeister.  

There's nothing wrong with self-promotion.  Writers write to be read.
At least I got the link right.

Thanks for the interesting interview. So, we're all space cadets?

In the 1945 radio match Bronstein mentioned Ragosin played the Two Knights' Defense against Herman Seidman.  Even though he won the game, Ragosin was punished for his choice of opening since the Soviets felt the Americans has researched it better.  

Yes. The times they are a-changin'

Back in the late 1990s I used to play some chess on the Danish FICS. In fact, they were trying to incorporate computer accounts at the time and I helped test their functionality (just by playing them). The guy who managed the site went by the handle "The Dane."  I used to imagine I was talking to Bent Larsen (OK, I was only 22). 

One book about Bronstein that I have enjoyed is "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" by Bronstein & Furstenberg.  It's mostly a collection of games.  Most have commentary by Bronstein about the games & matches.  All kinds of anecdotes and some pictures from his youth.  It is fun and instructive.

awesome article

Loved your blog, Sarah! Thanks.

I have quoted from Bronstein's "Notes" in several of my articles on Soviet "sporting tactics."

Did you know that, after the drawn championship match versus Botvinnik, the Soviets referred to Bronstein as "vice world champion"?

Interesting parallel with the term "pedagogy" here, roughly speaking the word originated from ancient greek meaning "to lead a child". If you're engaging with pedagogy then you are leading the learner on their learning journey rather than simply presenting them with information.

Obviously I have no idea what the professor meant but there's a term in education called "scaffolding" which might help explain why the easy summary statement was rejected in favour of leaving a trail of breadcrumbs, as it were. 

When building a skyscraper, scaffolding will go up ahead of and around the building, but when the building nears completion the scaffolding comes down slowly. Eventually it's withdrawn entirely and the building stands on its own.

So rather than teaching through an easy summary statement, a lot of teachers will act like a scaffolder, slowly building upward from a low starting point, adding levels of knowledge piece by piece to slowly assemble the knowledge needed to support a concept and then slowly withdrawing themselves until the student is standing on their own (in a 2 hour, 90 question exam which begins.......NOW). 

Nope. That's the first I've heard that. That was a particularly, ummm, interesting match between opposing styles and political strata during particularly interesting times. 

This would have been a good time to have provided direct links to those articles. 

Bronstein's book is terrific.

That's really a great cartoon!