| Sep-12-07 |
| smarterthanbobby: move 16. bisop c5? takes
the castle? what's wrong with
that move? did fisher miss it?
I mean? it's a solid move from
what I see! |
 |
| Sep-12-07 |
| D4n: 16. Bc5 would have caused black to trade queens, not really gaining anything. |
|
May-20-09
 |
| DaveyL: 16. Bc5 would be answered by 16. ... Qe6, hitting the white rook on d5. |
|
| May-20-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Somehow, I suspect that Fischer and Reshevsky considered the possibility... in the first nano second of analysis. |
|
May-20-09
|
| euripides: Doesn't <16.Bc5 Qe6> run into 17.Nc7 ? Perhaps 16...Qg5+ e.g. 17.Be3 Qe7 with repetition or 17.Kb1 Rfd8 and if 18.Bd6 Black has Qxg4. |
|
May-20-09
|
| DaveyL: 16. Bc5 Qe6 17. Nc7 then 17. ... Qc6 |
|
May-20-09
|
| euripides: <Davey> ah I see I had considered 17...Qc6 18.Bxf8 but not noticed that the d5 rook is pinned on the h1 one so after 18...K/Rxf8 White can't take on e5. However, perhaps White can still play <16.Bc5 Qe6 17.Nc7 Qc6> 18.Re1 (not 18.Rhd1 Qxc7 19.Bd6 Qc4 20.Rxe5 Qxa2) Qxc7 19.Bxf8 Rxf8 20.Rxe5 Bxe5 21.Qxe5 simplifying with the extra pawn. |
|
May-20-09
|
| euripides: ... or perhaps Black has <16.Bc5 Qe6 17.Nc7 Qc6 18.Re1> Rfc8 (Rac8 19.Bxf8 Q/Rxc7 20.Rc5 or 19...Kxf8 20.Rxe5) 19.Bd6 Rxc7 20.Bxc6 Qxd5 21.Bxe5 Qxa2 winning the pawn back. Unncessarily complicated for Fischer anyway. |
|
May-20-09
|
| euripides: ... or even <16.Bc5 Qe6 17.Nc7 Qc6 18.Re1 Rfc8 19.Bd6> Nc4 20.Rc5 Bb2+ 21.Kb2 Qxd6 22.Qxc4 Bg7. All very murky. |
|
Nov-02-09
 |
| DrGridlock: Reshevsky's opening choice to play 6 ... d5 is not to be recommended. In his notes to the "original" Keres Attack game (Keres - Bogoljuboff) Keres writes, "In order to appraise the worth of g4, we must first of all consider the possible replies ... 6 ... d5, 7 exd5 Nxd5, Bb5+ Bd7, Nxd5 exd5, Qe2+ would leave White with a most agreeable position." Black's reply 6 ... d5 occurs 4 times in the Chessgames database, with 4 wins for White. Once every 20 years or so someone dusts off 6 ... d5, but noone has yet refuted Keres' original evaluation. |
|
| Nov-02-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: They agreed with your assessment, even back then. Profile of a Prodigy gave it a question mark. In another way, Reshevsky was to be faulted for playing this move, not considering that Fischer, in his preparations for the opening, would never allow something like 6....d5 if it was good. |
|
