14

The beginning of the James Bond film From Russia with love (1963) portrays the end of a game between the fictional characters Kronsteen (Czechoslovakia) and Macadams (Canada) in the last and decisive round of the Venice International Grandmasters Championship. The moves go like this:

[White "Kronsteen"]
[Black "Macadams"]
[FEN "r3rnk1/ppp1qNp1/7p/4b3/5Q2/1B6/PP4PP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1.Nxe5+ Kh7 2.Qe4+ 1-0

Is this game based on a real game or famous problem?

Improve this question
3

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
26

This game is based on a 1960 game between Boris Spassky and David Bronstein, on the 16th round of the USSR Championship:

[FEN ""]
[Event "URS-ch27 Final"]
[Site "Leningrad"]
[Date "1960.02.20"]
[Round "16"]
[White "Spassky, Boris Vasilievich"]
[Black "Bronstein, David Ionovich"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C36"]
[PlyCount "53"]
[EventDate "1960.01.26"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "19"]
[EventCountry "URS"]

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Bd6 5. Nc3 Ne7 6. d4 O-O 7. Bd3 Nd7 8. O-O
h6 9. Ne4 Nxd5 10. c4 Ne3 11. Bxe3 fxe3 12. c5 Be7 13. Bc2 Re8 14. Qd3 e2 15.
Nd6 Nf8 16. Nxf7 exf1=Q+ 17. Rxf1 Bf5 18. Qxf5 Qd7 19. Qf4 Bf6 20. N3e5 Qe7 21.
Bb3 Bxe5 22. Nxe5+ Kh7 23. Qe4+ 1-0

As you can see, the game on the film shows the same position as after black's move 21, but without the pawns on c5 and d4.

Improve this answer
1
  • 5
    My guess is that they removed those 2 pawns for aesthetic reasons, as they'd partially obscure the queen from certain camera angles. It's unlikely they had a chess master on staff when they made the film, they just took a recent game and modified it, thinking (likely correctly) that most of the audience wouldn't notice or care - it only had to be convincing to a layman. (Also people didn't hyper-analyze films in those days to the degree they do now - especially since seeing it more than once required buying another ticket...)
    – Darrel Hoffman
    May 23, 2022 at 14:42
4

In addition to the other answer, that position was the subject of Tim Krabbé’s Open Chess Diary #250. He argues that the move played, 22...Kh7, is a blunder in the modified position.

[In the real game] 22...Kh7 was not a blunder; the other possibility 22...Ne6 is met by 23.Ng6 or Qe4 and the Ne6 soon falls. In Kronsteen - MacAdams however, for some reason, the White pawns d4 and c5 were missing, allowing Black a vital check on c5, which enables him to put up a tenacious and possibly successful defence with 22...Ne6.

However, he wrote this in 2004, presumably without checking with an engine. In 2022, I have the luxury of being able to run Stockfish depth 20 via lichess, and apparently 22...Ne6 is still +2.8 (winning for White) after 23.Ng6 (the only move that keeps an edge). Now:

  • 23...Qc5+ 24.Kh1. The threat is Bxe6 and Qf7+ (in either order) to win the knight. The only way to avoid it is 24...Kh7, which runs into 25.Qe4, with the simple threat of 26.Nf8 Kh8 27.Qh7# (crucially, Nf8 is a double check, so the black knight has no useful discovery)
  • 23...Qd6 24.Qe4 and Black cannot prevent the loss of the knight. Black can exchange the queens via 24...Rad8 25.Nf4 Qd4+ 26.Qxd4 Rxd4 but after 27.Nxe6! (27.Bxe6 might be a technically winning endgame, but Black has much more hope of holding) Black will lose another exchange. Stockfish gives 27...Rb4 28.Nxc7+ Rxb3 29.axb3 followed by ...Re2 or ...Re3 as Black’s best, but White is able to keep at least one pawn alive on the queenside, so the piece-up endgame is a fairly easy win.
Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.