What's so special about the Zurich 1953 Chess Tournament?

Hey guys,

I asked people about the best chess books and many have recommend this book called "Zurich 1953 by David". I did a bit of research and found that it was a chess tournament played in Zurich.

But there are hundreds of chess tournaments played every year and all around the world, so why is this specific tournament has a whole book written on it and not the others? 

What's so special about the Zurich 1953?

Also, Bronstein's annotated book of the tourney is reckoned to be one of the best such books ever written.

http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/review-zurich-1953-bronstein
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

By the way, there are many other tournaments that have been described in books.

Yeah, the quality of the annotations is one of the things that is supposed to give it classic status, along with strong games.

I have the book, and just need to spend time working through it, so can't give my opinion on quality, but it does come highly recommended.

.. A rare, {if inadequate}, image, of the aforementioned, 'Zurich, '53, chess tourney; Of the 'demonstration' boards, etc.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-efc668f2bb5f23d3d344eef30cdc38e4-c

An incredible tournament, that was very well written, and the analysis is top notch!

And some even say that Bronstein wrote the best chess book ever but only the second best on Zurich :-) Najdorf also wrote a brilliant book on the same tournament.

The top ten players of the day were all present at Vienna 1882 and Linares 1993.  Zurich/Neuhausan Candidates 1953 had nine of the top ten, with only the world champion Botvinnik being absent.  So yes, Zurich was a very strong tournament.

Bronstein's book has a few different things that make it special.  He focuses on positional/strategic concepts more than variations.  Instead of criticizing the loser's mistakes, he tries to look at what they were trying to achieve, what plans they must have had in mind.  Also, Bronstein is an interesting writer, taking great delight in combinations and sacrifices, and conveying his enthusiasm in a lively manner.

I haven't read Najdorf's book on Zurich yet, but it got very good reviews when it was finally translated into English years later.  Was Euwe's book translated into English, or was it just in Dutch?

Alekhine's New York 1924 tournament book and Nimzowitsch's Carlsbad 1929 tournament book are fairly popular, but neither of them are as magnanimous as Bronstein.

Bronstein’s book on Zurich 1953 is delightful, as well as highly instructive. I was about to buy Najdorf’s book, but several reviewers on Amazon point out that the translation is poorly edited. It reportedly contains numerous typos, such as giving a move as Ng4 when no N could possibly move there. Some moves are omitted entirely. I still want the book, but based on those reviews I have decided to hold off and see if a second edition will come out.

You're very welcome. Interesting side note: Averbakh wrote the introduction to Najdorf's book. If I'm not mistaken, Yuri Lvovich is the last surviving participant of the tournament.

I need to thank you also: I've been learning a lot from your comments on various threads.

Bronstein was a big player of his time and hence his book was hyped up. It's the general trend in chess. Fischer's book & Nimzovich's book are other examples of this trend. What is so special about Zurich 1953? Nothing. Soviets were fixing matches in Zurich 1953 just as they were fixing matches before and after it.

No one is saying matches were being fixed, and that is not what the book is about.  The book is hyoed because its a classic, and for good reason.  Stay on track here.

I think you are right.  Averbakh is 95 years old now.

It is a brilliant book: 1) these days candidate tournaments have 8 players playing double round robins (making up for a total of 56 games) as the zürich international chess tournament was played by a total of 15 participants, 9 of the top ten in the world and young talents (Euwe,Reshevsky) as well as old talents (Stahlberg) which made it such a well-rounded tournement full of games from different era’s of chess style and play. Also, this tournement was also a double round-robbin (as they’re today, you play everyone twice (one as black and one as white) with a total of 210 games! AND they’re all annotated in the most brilliant way. Don’t get me wrong, some of the short draws aren’t much annotated, but in Bronstein’s book for example, he goes on about trivia of that time, other variations worth mentioning and very interesting ideas and concepts on the board and psychologically. Personally, I don’t have Miguel Najdorf’s book but am doing A FULL REVIEW of this tournament with David Bronstein’s book alongside me (I’m currently at game 80 /210 and started back in February of 2018) publicly on my instagram chess channel if you wan to check it out:

@chess_nerd (same logo as here)

Compare Sinquefield in 2018 with Zurich in 1953
I think the strength of the players in 2018 is greater. But in Zurich, 1953, we have theorists who have changed the way we play chess.

Of the 15 participants I think at least 10 have variants of openings that take their name lol. They are not just practical players like Carlsen or Nakamura or the Chinese players, they are real scientists.

It's like comparing a young talent in physics today with a great scientist from the early 20th century. Today scientists seem more pragmatic and less prone to innovation.

We are in the age of technicality.

I do not know if our grandchildren will read many chess books in which Carlsen will play a major role in the book. The last of the theorists for me was Kasparov, maybe, and just maybe, Kraminik. wink.png

Vasily Smyslov  <-- endgame, several openings ideas
David Bronstein *
Samuel Reshevsky <-- several opening ideas
Paul Keres <-- great author, several opening ideas
Tigran Vartanovich Petrosian <-- several opening ideas 'master of positional sacrifice'
Miguel Najdorf *
Efim Geller *
Alexander Kotov <- great author
Mark Taimanov <- opening ideas
Yuri Averbakh <- great author on endgame
Isaac Boleslavsky <- opening ideas
Laszlo Szabo <-- I dont know this guy
Svetozar Gligoric <-- I know this guy...
Max Euwe <-- great author,  ideas  on opening
Gideon Stahlberg <-- I dont know this guy

Ha ha.... It seems that bronstein's entire career was just made by him sleeping with a high profile Soviet officer. That explains everything! I always wondered at some of the praise showered at the play of these Soviet players even though their actual games seem quite ordinary. These Soviet players had good backing... Lol. 

Pfren, 

It's good to laugh at the world, otherwise it is tragic. That Bronstein's career must have been made by crushing many other promising young careers just because he was sleeping with a powerful guy. And then the hypocrisy and propaganda machine of raising these people as some kind of demi-gods. 

Mickynj,

The irony in your post is amazing. Bronstein?!!! Come on, most people don't even know about him, so I don't know how that would make me feel important by insulting him. I don't even particularly care about these individual Soviet players. What I absolutely detest is how they have been put on a pedestal by Soviet propaganda machine without achieving anything extra-ordinary. These Soviet players of that era were just fixing matches and sleeping with right people... 

What word counter did you use?