|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-29-12
 | | jonnyjack: Why not 21. Nf3 ? |
 |
May-29-12
 | | Honza Cervenka: <jonnyjack: Why not 21. Nf3 ?> 21...Qxd2+ 22.Rxd2 Bxc3 looks like a good reason to me. |
|
May-29-12
| | Honza Cervenka: As <izimbra> already pointed out some time ago, Fischer's comment on 15.Qc2 is wrong. I agree that it is the most natural reaction to threatening Ne4 but it loses tactically by force, though it is not so simple to say that "<15.Qc2> walks the WQ into a fork after <15...Nxf3 16.Kxf2 Ng4+ 17.Kg1 Nxe3>", as the fork is not a problem here (after 18.Qd2 Nxd1? 19.Rxd1 the white with two Knights against the Rook and 2P and even probably only 1P as Pd5 is going to fall here soon is not worse and probably has some edge, though I would not say that he is won here). White's problem was 18...Nxg2! with following tactics, which is essential for whole combination starting from 15...Nxf2!! I guess that only this Byrne missed when he was playing 15.Qc2 and maybe already 14.Rfd1, as the sac of Knight on f2 in such a position is a tactical motif, which any GM and even a solid club level player like me usually has in mind. So the bust of 15.Qc2 was deep and very complex combination and it is no wonder that Byrne missed that, and it is a trademark of champion class that Bobby found it over the board. But it doesn't change the fact that he made a bit sloppy comment here as the threat Ne4, much as unpleasant for white, was not decisive. Black is definitely better after 15.Rab1 Ne4 16. Nxe4 dxe4 or 15.Nd4 Ne4 16. Nxe4 dxe4 but white is still alive. |
|
| May-29-12 | | galdur: Another masterpiece of Bobby´s. Enuff said. |
|
May-29-12
| | Honza Cervenka: I think that white's problems started already with 12.Qd2 as after Bobby's opening of the centre by e7-e5 the position of Queen became a bit awkward and it let to excel black Knights, which became very active and intrusive after that making a difference in position in black's favor. 12.Rc1 looks as a more useful move here. |
|
Aug-29-12
 | | TheFocus: This is game 48 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>. |
|
Sep-15-12
 | | morfishine: In any case, a number of commentators or analysts (RHuebner in particular) have pointed out that <14.Rad1> is much better than 14.Rfd1 This has always been my favorite Fischer Game. However, I'm at the point that <14.Rfd1> has to be labeled a 'blunder' (choosing the wrong rook) which allowed the brilliancy to happen. Sad, but true Doggone, now I gotta find another Fischer game to call my favorite...no problem, there's lots to choose from...Happy Chess! :) |
|
| Sep-30-12 | | teddysalad: <This is game 48 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>>......Bobby is one tough grader. |
|
Sep-30-12
 | | lost in space: How amazing!
I thought after 22. Qf2 Qh3+ 23. Kg1 Re1+!! 24. Rxe1 Bxd4!...
click for larger view...White could play 25. Re2 and after 25...Bxf2+ White would be just an exchange down. BUT
25. Re2?? Qg2#
click for larger view
Lol |
|
Dec-17-12
 | | Conrad93: Isn't 18...Nxg2 a move any greedy player would play? |
|
Jan-25-13
 | | Eduardo Bermudez: Fifty years ago... watch on light squares at white side !! |
|
| Jan-26-13 | | RookFile: <Isn't 18...Nxg2 a move any greedy player would play? > The answer would be no. The move astonished the grandmasters commenting on the game. The greedy player takes the rook on d1 for material reasons, not the bishop on g2. |
|
| Jan-28-13 | | CharlesSullivan: Bobby Fischer was a great player and analyst, and he made us believe that 14.Rfd1 was the losing move; but the extremely passive 15.Qc2 is the true mistake. Very interesting is 15.Rab1, as suggested by <izimbra> on 22 March 2012. But 15...Bh6! keeps the pot boiling. The position is very complicated, so I will only sketch out how Black wins against Houdini's chosen defense of 16.h3 (-1.51 after 48 hours, 35 iterations). 16...Rc8! (16...Nxf2 17.Kxf2 Bxe3+ 18.Qxe3 Rxe3 19.Kxe3 Qc8 20.Kf2 Bxe2 21.Nxe2 Ne4+ 22.Bxe4 dxe4 23.Rbc1 Qxh3 24.Rc3 Qh2+ 25.Kf1 h5 26.Be7 Kh7 27.Bg5 holds) 17.Bc1 Rc7 18.b4 Bc4 19.a4 Qc8 20.Nd4 Ne4 21.Nxe4 dxe4 22.a5 b5 23.Bb2 Bg7 24.Ba1 Bd5 25.Qe2 a6 26.h4 h5 27.Kh2 Rc4 28.Rd2 Rc1 29.Rd1 Rxd1 30.Rxd1 Qc4 31.Qd2 Rc8 32.f3 f5 33.Kg1 Qxb4 34.Qxb4 Nxb4 35.fxe4 Bxe4 36.Bxe4 fxe4 and Black is a pawn ahead and winning.
click for larger view"The best might well be to go in for the line 15.Nd4" wrote Robert Huebner. 15.Nd4 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bb2 Rc8 ("with a powerful bind" says Fischer) 18.a4! (Huebner). Kasparov agrees with Huebner that this line is White's best chance; "after 18...Qg5 Black has an obvious advantage, thanks to his powerful knight at d3," writes Kasparov. But White is OK after 18...Qg5 19.Bf1 Red8 20.h4 Qh5 21.a5 Nxb2 22.Qxb2 Bxf1 23.Rxf1 Bxd4 24.exd4 Qd5 25.axb6 axb6 26.Rfe1 Qxd4 27.Qxd4 Rxd4 28.Ra4 Rxa4 29.bxa4 Rc4 30.Rb1 Rxa4 31.Rxb6, which looks to be a draw:
click for larger viewHuebner almost found an even simpler draw: 15.Nf4! Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Rab1 Rc8 18.Bb4! (Huebner's improvement over Fischer's suggested 18.Nxd3) 18...Nxf4 19.gxf4 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 Bd3 21.Rbd1 a5 22.Bd6 Bc3 23.Rxd3 exd3 [see diagram]. Here Huebner gave 24.Rxd3, but 24...Be1! 25.Kf1 Rc1 26.Ba3 Ra1 27.Bb2 Rxa2 wins for Black.
click for larger view
Both Huebner and Kasparov overlook the simple (dare I say crude?) 24.Bb7! and White restores parity after either 24...Rcd8 25.Bc7 Rd7 26.Bc6 Rxc7 27.Bxe8 or 24...d2 25.Bxc8 Rxc8 26.Kf1 f6 27.a4! Black has the easier position, but nothing more:
click for larger view
So, despite Fischer's dismissal of them, both 15.Nf4 and 15.Nd4 were adequate defenses. |
|
| Jan-28-13 | | RookFile: We have computers and Fischer didn't. |
|
| Jan-28-13 | | Olavi: Well Hübner found those improvements without a comp, otherwise he wouldn't have missed 24.Bb7 in <CharlesSullivan>'s third diagram. And I think he has stated that too. But it's always easier to correct an existing analysis. |
|
Jan-30-13
 | | AylerKupp: <CharlesSullivan> It is true that Huebner, or for that matter Kasparov or Byrne, didn't have computers. Critter 1.6 has the following lines after 14.Rfd1 Nd3 and either 15.Nd4 or 14.Nf4: After 15.Nd4: [-0.71], d=31: 15. ... Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bb2 Rc8 18.a4 Rc7 (instead of Kasparov's 18...Qg5) 19.Bf1 Qc8 20.Ra2 Ne5 21.Bxa6 Qxa6 22.Ba1 Qc8 23.Qe2 a6 24.Rad2 Rd8 25.Kg2 Nd3 26.Bb2 Qb7 27.Kg1 Qd5 28.Rxd3 exd3 29.Qxd3 b5 30.axb5 axb5 31.Qd2 Bf8 32.Qa5 Rc2 33.Rb1 Ra8 34.Qxa8 Qxa8 35.Nxc2
click for larger viewA long, possibly meaningless line, but I don't see how White can survive after 35...Qa2. Apparently the horizon effect in action since the [-0.71] eval following 15...Ne4 is therefore much too low (yet another example why you <MUST> check all engine analysis). Starting from this position Critter evaluates the resulting position at [-9.33], d=28 after 35...Qa2 36.Rf1 Qxb3 37.Nd4 Qxb2 38.Nc6 b4 39.Nxb4 Qxb4 and the rest is not particularly interesting, R+P vs. Q+B.
click for larger viewAfter 15.Nf4: [-0.60], d=30: 15...Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Rab1 Rc8 18.Bb4 (same as Huebner's suggested line) 18...Nxf4 19.gxf4 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 Bd3 21.Rbd1 a5 22.Bd6 Re6 (here Critter deviates from Huebner's suggested 22...Bc3) 23.Bh3 f5 24.Be5 (a strange move, why does White need to give up a pawn, even if it's doubled? Is 24.Ba3 that much worse?) 24...Bxe5 25.fxe5 Rxe5 26.Bf1 Bxf1 27.Kxf1 Kf7 28.Rd7+ Re7 29.R1d6 Rc1+ 30.Kg2 Rc2 31.Rxe7+ Kxe7 32.Rxb6 Rxa2 33.Rb7+ Ke6 34.Rxh7 f4 35.Rh3 g5 36.exf4 gxf4 37.Kf1 Kf5 38.Rc3 f3 39.Ke1 Kf4 40.Rc7 Re2+ 41.Kf1 e3 42.Rc4+ Ke5
click for larger viewAnd this is indeed a draw. At d=26 Critter evaluates the position at [0.00] after 43.fxe3 Rxe3 44.h4 Rxb3 45.Ra4 Rb5 46.h5 Kf6 47.h6 Kg6 48.h7 Kg7 49.Rf4 Rb1+ 50.Kf2 Rb2+ 51.Kxf3 Rb3+ 52.Ke2 Kxh7 53.Rh4+ Kg6 54.Rg4+ Kh5. So if Black is to have any winning chances, they must probably be found somewhere after 26.Bf1 when Black is, at least temporarily, a pawn up.
click for larger viewMaybe 37...f3 instead of 37...Kf5 to gain a tempo (White must play 38.Ke1 to prevent mate) and cut off the White rook from the q-side, at least temporarily.
click for larger view |
|
Jan-30-13
| | AylerKupp: (continued) And indeed Rybka 4.1 agrees (hooray for me!). It evaluates the resulting position after 37...f3 39.Ke1 at [-13.72], d=28 after 38...Re2+ (forcing White back and gaining another tempo due to the mate threat) 39.Kf1 Rb2 40.Ke1 Rxb3 41.Rh5 a4 42.Ra5 a3 43.h4 Kf7 44.Ra8 Kg6 45.Ra5 Kh6 46.Ra7 (White is in zugswang) 46...Kh5 47.Ra6 Kxh4 48.Ra4 Kh5 49.Ra5+ Kg4 50.Ra8 Rb1+ 51.Kd2 Rb2+ 52.Kc3 Rxf2 53.Rg8+ Kf5 and the 2 passed pawns get through.
click for larger viewSliding forward, at first glance Rybka seems to find a better way than Critter starting from the position after 26.Bf1. It evaluates the resulting position at [-0.67], d=28 after 26...Bxf1 27.Kxf1 Rec5 (instead of Critter's 27...Kf7) 28.Rd6 R5c6 29.Kg2 R8c7 30.Kg3 Kg7 31.Rxc6 Rxc6 32.Rd7+ Kh6 33.Rb7 a4 34.bxa4 Rc4 35.Ra7 Rc5 36.Ra6 Ra5 37.Rxb6 Rxa4 38.Rb2 Kg5 39.Rc2 Ra3 40.Kg2 Kg4 41.h3+ Kh4
click for larger viewAn advantage for Black to be sure (1 pawn island instead of 3) but I don't think that it is enough to win. Rybka doesn't seem to have a clue how to proceed, apparently basing its evaluation on positional considerations only rather than a constructive plan of action. Starting from this position it evaluates the resulting position at [-0.76], d=37 after 42.Rc7 h5 43.Rc6 Kg5 44.Rc2 Ra5 45.Rb2 h4 46.Kg1 Kf6 47.Kg2 Ra3 48.Kf1 Ra6 49.Kg2 Ra5 50.Rc2 Ra3 51.Rc6+ Kg5 52.Rc2 Ra6 53.Kg1 Kh5 54.Kg2 Ra8 55.Rd2 Ra3 56.Rc2 Ra5 57.Rb2 and Black has made no progress. Yet another example of needing to check engine analysis.
click for larger viewOf course, none of these lines are forced (although I couldn't find any obvious improvements for either side in the initial 15.Nf4 line other than 37...f3) so they're hardly conclusive. But I think that they do show that Black retains the better chances throughout despite what Huebner and Kasparov (without computers, of course) thought. |
|
Jan-30-13
| | AylerKupp: (continued) To change the subject somewhat, as <kingscrusher> indicated slightly over a year ago, he updated his analysis of the game and you can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S7_.... I think it is his best video ever, with lots of analysis of Fischer's late game possibilities. Very highly recommended. You owe it yourself to set aside an hour of your time, get comfortable (48 minutes long), and watch it. It makes Fischer's play look even more remarkable than it appeared at the time. And Byrne should also be commended for seeing that his position at the end was hopeless, even if everybody else at the scene didn't think so. As <Olavi> said, it's always easier to correct an existing analysis, with or without computers. And it is usually more fun, even if likely meaningless, to do the subsequent analysis without the clock ticking. And compare the cramping effect of Fischer's Nd3 with the similar cramping effect of Kasparov's Nd3 in Karpov vs Kasparov, 1985. You can also see a very informative 30-min video on the game with commentary by Kasparov at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z4Z.... Great minds and great chessplayers obviously think alike. |
|
| Jan-31-13 | | CharlesSullivan: <AylerKupp> Good to have your analysis! (A) Regarding 15.Nf4, I am still fairly certain that White can hold the game. You give 15...Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Rab1 Rc8 18.Bb4 Nxf4 19.gxf4 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 Bd3 21.Rbd1 a5 22.Bd6 (Huebner) 22...Re6 23.Bh3 f5 24.Be5 Bxe5 25.fxe5 Rxe5 26.Bf1 Bxf1 27.Kxf1 Kf7 [Houdini 1.5a gives 27...Rec5 (-0.23) as best after 37 iterations] 28.Rd7+ Re7 29.R1d6 Rc1+ 30.Kg2 Rc2 31.Rxe7+ Kxe7 32.Rxb6 Rxa2 [Houdini 1.5a prefers 32...f4 33.exf4 e3 (-0.12) after 8 hours, 40 iterations] 33.Rb7+ Ke6 34.Rxh7 f4 [or 34...g5 35.Kg3=]:
click for larger view
Now 35.exf4 [instead of 35.Rh3?] seems perfectly adequate for equality: 35...e3 36.Rh3 Rxf2+ [or 36...exf2 37.Rg3 Kf6 38.Kf1=; or 36...e2 37.Re3+ =] 37.Kg1 Rxf4 38.Rxe3+ Kf6 39.Rc3=. (B) Regarding 15.Nd4, I agree that White ends up with a difficult game, but I cannot find a win for Black. You give 15...Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bb2 Rc8 18.a4 (Huebner) 18...Rc7 [My previous post analyzed Kasparov's 18...Qg5. I've also looked at 18...h5 19.Bh3! and 18...Nxb2, both of which also lead to drawish positions]
click for larger view
A preliminary, overnight analysis gives -- instead of 19.Bf1 -- 19.a5 [Houdini 1.5a (-0.60) after 36 iterations, 16 hours] 19...b5 20.b4 Qc8 [I've started looking at 20...Rc4] 21.Ra3 Bb7 22.Rc3 a6 23.Bf1 Rc4 24.Rxc4 bxc4 25.Bc3 Qd7 26.Rb1 looks solid, albeit passive, for White. So far the computers give 26...Qd5 [transposing is 26...Bc6 27.Bg2 Qd5] 27.Bg2 Bc6 28.Nxc6 Qxc6 29.Bxg7 Kxg7 30.Qc3+ f6 31.Rd1 (-0.70). |
|
Jan-31-13
| | AylerKupp: <Charles Sullivan> This has always been one of my favorite games. And I consider 18...Nxg2 one of the best moves ever played, possibly the best ever given the concept behind it. Fischer must have been able to see this move and its follow up before playing 12...e5, since both 14.Rfd1 and 15.Qc2 are, on the surface, very reasonable moves for White. Poor Byrne apparently didn't have any idea of what was coming! It's difficult (impossible?) in games to reach a definite conclusion using engine analysis with such long lines. So many possibly promising lines get pruned during the search and, of course, different engines have different evaluation functions and search tree pruning heuristics that they come up with different lines and evaluations. In particular, the moves given by the engines towards the end of the lines can be highly suspect, like my 37...f3 instead of Critter's 37...Kf5. So I laugh when people vehemently argue about the relative merits of two 20-move long unforced engine lines. I had run a Houdini 1.5a analysis a short time ago to see what it thought was White's best 14th move. It evaluated 14.Rad1 to be the best (like everyone else did), at [-0.25], d=31 but it considered Byrne's 14.Rfd1 to be second best, evaluating it at [-0.54], d=31 after 14.Rfd1 Nd3 15.Nf4 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Rab1 Rc8 18.Bb4 Nxf4 19.gxf4 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 Bd3 21.Rbd1 a5 22.Bd6 Re6 23.Bh3 f5 24.Be5 Bxe5 25.fxe5 Rxe5 26.Bf1 Bxf1 27.Kxf1 Rec5
click for larger viewAt the time I thought that this looked pretty grim for White to me. A pawn down and 3 pawn islands vs. 2 in a KRR+KRR ending. But I didn't look further. In your (A) line I foolishly assumed that 35.exf4 would lead to a loss after 35...e3 but again I didn't bother to look further so I assumed that Critter was probably right about 35.Rh3. Obviously things are not as simple as they looked to me on the surface! I had Rybka 4.1 analyze the position after 35.exf4 35...e3 and, indeed, it couldn't find a win after 36...e3, coming up at low ply with [-0.11], d=22: 36.Rh3 Rxf2+ 37.Kg1 Kf5 38.Rxe3 Rxf4, pretty much a draw.
click for larger view35.exf4 e3 36.Rh3 e2 doesn't lead to anything either. And Rybka doesn't find anything better than 34...f4 at d=26, evaluating the resulting position at no better than [-0.10] for Black. So, yes, this line after 15.Nf4 seems to hold for White. With regards to your (B) line I decided to give Critter another chance, starting with the position after 15.Nd4 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bb2 Rc8 18.a4. It still selected 19.Bf1 as White's best move [-0.71], d=25 over Houdini 1.5's 19.a5 at [-0.88], d=25. So Critter and Houdini pretty much agree, a difficult game for White but no forced win for Black. So I tried Stockfish 2.3.1. Stockfish at d=34 prefers 19.a5 over 19.Bf1, with an eval of [-1.13] vs. [-1.37]. This is Stockfish's line: 19.a5 b5 20.b4 Rc4 21.Bc3 Qc7 22.Ra3 Nxf2 (better late then never !) 23.Qxf2 Rxc3 24.Rxc3 Qxc3 25.Qd2 Qc8 26.Qe1 Qg4 27.Nc6 Qe6 28.Nd4 Qd5 29.Ne2 Qc4 30.Rd7 Bf8 31.Rxa7 Bc8 32.Qf2 Re7 33.Ra8 Rc7 34.Qf4 Bxb4. But this is another example of the horizon effect; starting the analysis from this position Stockfish evaluates the resulting position at [0.00], d=30 after either 35.Kf2 or 35.h4, both petering out to a draw by repetition. So it looks like you may be right again, no forced win for Black after 15.Nd4 either, at least not this way. Did you look at the <kingscrusher> video? After 15.Nf4 Ne4 16.Nxd4 exd4 17.Rab1 Rc8 he doesn't look at 18.Bb4 but instead came up with the following after 18.Nxd3 Bc3 19.Qe2 Bxd3 20.Qg4 h5 21.Qh3 Bxb1 22.Rxd8 Rcxd8 and White is helpless against 23...Rd8 and 24...Bd3. Yet another example of the dynamic potential of Black's pieces. |
|
| Feb-01-13 | | CharlesSullivan: <AylerKupp> Yes, I looked at the kingscrusher video a couple of months ago. Actually, his analysis got me thinking that there was more going on in the position at moves 14 & 15 than I had previously thought. |
|
Feb-21-13
| | morfishine: <AylerKupp> Thanks for posting Kingscrushers video on this game! |
|
| Apr-07-13 | | Tigranny: Wow! Amazing game, probably among my top favorites! The true Game of the Century! |
|
| Apr-07-13 | | RookFile: In retrospect you realize that a3 bishop of white's was pretty worthless. |
|
| Apr-13-13 | | IndigoViolet: From Game 48's Introduction in <MSMG>: <K.F. Kirby [Kenneth Kirby ], editor of the South African Chess Quarterly, summed up the astonishment and admiration of the chess world when he wrote:<The Byrne game was quite fabulous, and I cannot call to mind anything to parallel it. After White's eleventh move I should adjudicate his position as slightly superior, and at worse completely safe. To turn this into a mating position in eleven more moves is more witchcraft than chess! Quite honestly, I do not see the man who can stop Bobby at this time...>> |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 18 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
Now on DVD
|
|
|
Annotations by 
sac: 15...Nxf2