Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Historical knowledge and information regarding our great game.
Post Reply
John Moore
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by John Moore » Thu May 01, 2014 4:45 pm

Since I still haven't worked out how to post games - yes I know sorry! - can I persuade someone to stick up the position from this remarkable game after Black's move 22 which was d4. Now Bronstein played 23 Bd2 but your engine (please don't use it until you at least have a try) finds the only move to preserve a significant advantage. To be fair, O'Kelly appears to have found the idea in the bulletin which suggests he might have been fairly useful.

If Bronstein had found the idea, it might have become known as the Immortal Parking Move.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18521
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu May 01, 2014 5:00 pm



The position at move 22

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4023
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu May 01, 2014 5:00 pm

The PGN of that game looks like this:

[Event "Zagreb"]
[Site "Zagreb"]
[Date "1965.??.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Bronstein, David I"]
[Black "Uhlmann, Wolfgang"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo ""]
[BlackElo ""]
[ECO "C18"]

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8
9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Kd1 Nd7 11.Nf3 Nxe5 12.Bf4 Qxc3 13.Nxe5 Qxa1+ 14.Bc1 d3 15.Qxf7+ Kd8
16.Qf6 dxc2+ 17.Kd2 Qd4+ 18.Bd3 Ke8 19.Ke2 Bd7 20.Be3 Qb2 21.Rc1 Rc8 22.Nxd7 d4
23.Bd2 Kxd7 24.Bb4 Rge8 25.Bb5+ Rc6 26.Kd2 Nd5 27.Qf7+ Re7 28.Bxe7 Qc3+ 29.Ke2 d3+
30.Bxd3 Nxe7 31.Rxc2 Qe5+ 32.Kd1 Qa1+ 33.Kd2 Qxa3 34.Rxc6 bxc6 35.Bc4 Qb4+
36.Kd3 Qb1+ 37.Kc3 Qc1+ 38.Kd3 Qb1+ 1/2-1/2

Enclose that in PGN tags and you get this:


John Moore
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by John Moore » Thu May 01, 2014 5:04 pm

Gentlemen

Many thanks. I wouldn't have asked if the move hadn't been rather remarkable.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18521
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu May 01, 2014 5:21 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote: Enclose that in PGN tags and you get this:
Part 1 is that you have to know how to download or paste in pgn from the database of your choice (or key the game longhand)

Part 2 of the trick is that you then play through the game using the "Preview" box until you reach the desired position. Then hit the b8 square on the diagram and the FEN string will appear in a separate window looking something like this

[FEN "2r1k1r1/pp1Nn3/4pQ2/8/3p4/P2BB3/1qp1KPPP/2R5 w - - 0 23"]

You then paste it back into your posting and put the pos tags around it.

John Moore
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by John Moore » Thu May 01, 2014 5:25 pm

Thanks Roger - I shall save this somewhere useful.

John Hickman
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:35 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by John Hickman » Fri May 02, 2014 10:08 am

Clicking on squares gives you short cuts to functionality.

Click on E8, and you will get the help. Select 'shortcut squares' from the menu there, and you will see e.g. B8 will give you the FEN string for a position.

Surf the net and click the square.
You will find what lies in there.

:wink:

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3143
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sun May 04, 2014 4:39 pm

A few people seem stuck regarding this one, even after consulting their engine friends. So what *was* the move? :?:
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Andy Stoker
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:23 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by Andy Stoker » Sun May 04, 2014 7:17 pm

cg.com
Feb-11-07
Premium Chessgames Member Chessical: <drukenknight> It is contentious to say that Bronstein missed: <23 Qxe6>. Rather, the consequences of that move were practicably incalcuable, and I believe that he made a practical and professional decision.
White needs to force mate on a near open board when himself faced with mate. After:

<23...dxe3> 24 Nf6+ Kf8, White cannot play 25...Qxc8 as the N protects the R. So, instead:

(a). <25.Nxg8> Qxc1 26.Qxe7+ Kxg8 (=)and the White Q only has time to check repeatedly but never fatally.

(b). <25.Nd5> (this seems the best move but I cannot see any clear win win) <25...Rg7> 26.Nxe7 Qxc1 27.Qxc8+ Kxe7 28.Qxb7+ Kf6. I think White may eventually win the <c2> pawn, but as long as the Black K stays around his R on the K-side there is no straightforward win, especially as due to his exposed K White lacks the time to push his K-side pawns and his <g> pawn is vulnerable.


Feb-23-03 drukenknight: Uhlmann and the winawer. Looks like Bronstein missed: 23 Qxe6 dxe3 24 Nf6+ Kf8 25 Qxc8 and then WQ goes back to c2 to hold the rook.

James Coleman
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:11 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by James Coleman » Sun May 04, 2014 7:27 pm

I don't think that's the move Andy

Simon Brown
Posts: 734
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, if not in Costa Calida, Spain

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by Simon Brown » Sun May 04, 2014 7:50 pm

Nb8?

Stephen Saunders
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:35 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by Stephen Saunders » Sun May 04, 2014 8:09 pm

Simon Brown wrote:Nb8?
Yes 23.Nb8!! is the move:- 23...Rxb8 24.Rxc2 Qxa3 25.Bb5+ Kd8 26.Qxe6 is the winning line given by O'Kelly that was mentioned above.

My chess engine suggests 23...Qb3 (to defend e6) but then White wins prettily with 24.Bg5 Rxg5 25.Qxg5 Rxb8 26.Qg3! with a double threat (Qxb8, Bg6+) that Black can't cope with

In contrast, 23.Qxe6 dxe3 24.Nf6+ Kf8 25.Nd5 Rg7! 26.Nxe7 Qxc1 27.Qxc8+ Kxe7 28.Qb7+ Kf6 leaves White looking for a perpetual check.

Very difficult even for a famous GM to sort all that out over the board, I should think - especially as Nb8 is not a "natural" move.

Sean Coffey
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:27 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by Sean Coffey » Sun May 04, 2014 8:32 pm

Although this is universally attributed to O'Kelly (by, e.g., Pachman, Zeuthen & Jarlnaes, Moles, Suetin, Schiller, and Korchnoi), it turns out that this isn't quite right.

It is given in O'Kelly's column in Europe Echecs, vol. 7, nos. 80-81, 5 September-5 October 1965, p. 192, but it's attributed there to Bronstein himself, who had the inspiration the evening of the same day, while watching "un match de foot".

I'm interested in the mention of the tournament bulletin (which I haven't seen) containing comments by O'Kelly. If there's a scan available, I'd be very interested in seeing it (my email address is in the link below). Even if O'Kelly gives it there, though, the Europe Echecs column indicates he still got it from Bronstein.

The line is analysed in http://www.irlchess.com/tnwr-dir/tNWR-10.pdf (see more generally http://www.irlchess.com/tnwr/), with this game covered up to move 17. (Apologies for advertising my own stuff.)

John Moore
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Bronstein v Uhlmann - Zagreb 1965

Post by John Moore » Mon May 05, 2014 12:50 pm

Sean - my initial comments about O'Kelly and the Bulletin are misleading. Megabase has annotations to the game shown as being from the bulletin but with other notes variously from Keres, Gligoric, Panov and O'Kelly. The one note by O'Kelly is to White's 23rd and goes 23 Nb8!! +- Rb8 24 Rc2! For some reason, I got this mixed up and assumed that O'Kelly's note was from the bulletin!

Interesting though that the idea was from the ever fertile imagination of Bronstein even if he wasn't able to find it over the board. White intends to keep both his Knight and his black squared bishop and this is the only way to do it. It would be wonderful to play a move like Nb8 - I'm just parking this up here for a bit - and then watch to see if you get a reaction from your opponent.

Post Reply