|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-05-20 | | JohnTal: Think About 19 Knight g3 check!!
with the idea runner check, queen check, game over. Nope, Spassky simply grabs the piece with 19 hg. ...hg+, 20 Bh3 without having to move his K. |
|
| Dec-06-20 | | asiduodiego: <Petrosianic> <I have no idea what this even means. If the good moves Spassky played in this match are a tribute to his brilliance, what are his mistakes a tribute to?> I meant in this game in particular. In the other games, of course he made mistakes, (otherwise, he would have won, dah), but in this game, he got an slight edge, pressed on, and didn't lose it for the rest of the game. In my opinion, being good at chess is not a thing of never ever making mistakes, but knowing how to win when you have the chance. And I'm not pretending that the things I said were "new" or anything. I was just reading all the fuzz about "Nb1" being a kind of "super move over-analyzed by the soviet machine" people were talking, and I just put the position in the computer and it said: "A good move, but the position is equal". Probably it was unnerving for Fischer, but it wasn't a critical position of the game. |
|
Dec-06-20
 | | moronovich: I recall Larsen was at ringside and saw this game live.
The more he thougt about Nb1 the more he liked it. |
|
| Dec-06-20 | | Petrosianic: <asiduodiego>: <I meant in this game in particular.> Oh, yes. Well, Spassky is certainly brilliant in this game. In Game 14, he had another great chance to win, though, and threw it away with 27...f6??, so, let's say that in this match, Spassky's brilliance was there, but occasional. <And I'm not pretending that the things I said were "new" or anything.> Oh, okay, I was just thrown by the wording, I guess. |
|
| Dec-06-20 | | asiduodiego: <Petrosianic> <In Game 14, he had another great chance to win, though, and threw it away with 27...f6??, so, let's say that in this match, Spassky's brilliance was there, but occasional.> Indeed, that was an ugly one. All I can say about that one is: "Change the order of the moves before you move it". |
|
| Aug-07-21 | | Albion 1959: For Fischer to give back the pawn on move 15 with d5, shows that his opening strategy was flawed. The poison pawn was one of his pet lines. Spassky clearly refuted Fischer's opening. Fischer had a number of opportunities to get the queen back to safely, for example - move 14 Qa4 move 15 Ne7 instead of d5? move 18 Qb6 and finally move 22 Qd8 instead of Qb5. |
|
| Jun-20-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: The times plus a testimony of the game from a website called crackteam.org: <<Game 11, August 6th, 1972 Spassky Fischer
White Black
(ar) (-0:01)
1. e4 (0:00) (ar) (0:03)
1. ... c5 (0:04)
(When Fischer arrived, Spassky had already made his move and disappeared, not returning until 6 minutes after Fischer made his first move.)
2. Nf3 (0:06) d6 (0:05)
3. d4 (0:06) cxd4 (0:05)
4. Nxd4 (0:06) Nf6 (0:05)
5. Nc3 (0:06) a6 (0:05)
6. Bg5 (0:06) e6 (0:06)
7. f4 (0:07) Qb6 (0:08)
8. Qd2 (0:08) Qxb2 (0:08)
9. Nb3 (0:08) Qa3 (0:08)
10. Bxf6 (0:08) gxf6 (0:08)
11. Be2 (0:08) h5 (0:20)
12. 0-0 (0:09) Nc6 (0:21)
13. Kh1 (0:13) Bd7 (0:24)
14. Nb1 (0:43) Qb4 (0:38)
15. Qe3 (0:45) d5 (0:44)
16. exd5 (0:48) Ne7 (0:44)
17. c4 (0:53) Nf5 (0:53)
18. Qd3 (0:54) h4 (1:20)
19. Bg4 (0:59) Nd6 (1:27)
20. N1d2 (1:08) f5 (1:27)
21. a3 (1:13) Qb6 (1:28)
22. c5 (1:16) Qb5 (1:28)
23. Qc3 (1:27) fxg4 (1:29)
24. a4 (1:28) h3 (1:35)
25. axb5 (1:31) hxg2+ (1:35)
26. Kxg2 (1:31) Rh3 (1:35)
27. Qf6 (1:38) Nf5 (1:38)
28. c6 (1:42) Bc8 (1:38)
29. dxe6 (1:44) fxe6 (1:41)
30. Rfe1 (1:46) Be7 (1:44)
31. Rxe6 (1:47) 1-0 (1:45)
(ar) indicates the arrival of the player.
At the close of the game, people were applauding Spassky for his game, but he gestured in a way that he wished the applause to be reduced. As we were about to leave the hall, a young chess prodigy, staring at the final position on the projection screen, exclamed, “That was sick!”, probably thinking of the loss of the Queen and the number of moves made afterward before resigning. The friend I was with laughed, and observed, “Everyone’s a critic!” This was Bobby’s first and only loss with the Poison Pawn variation of the Najdorf. One time, I reviewed Fischer’s adventures with the Sicilian Defense by looking at his chronological results. His point percentage against 6. Bg5 e6 7.f4 jumped up sharply when he switched to 7. … Qb6, starting with his game against Parma at Bled, 1961.> > |
|
| Dec-17-22 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: I think
19 ... Nd6
is a mistake because it deprives the queen of
the escape squares d6 and e7. |
|
| Dec-17-22 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: < beatgiant: <Ryan Razo> <Why did Fischer play 15...d5?> To open an escape route for his queen, which was threatened by 16. a3 Qa4 17. Nc3.> < Capabal: Position after 15.Qe3 Rybka analysis: : 15... Ne7 16. a3 Qa4 17. Nc3 Qc6 18. Rad1 (-0.42)> How about this variation:
15...Ne7 16. a4 Bxa4 17. c3 Qxb3 18. Nd2 Qc2 19. Bd1 Qb2 20. Bxa4+ b5 21. Bb3 b4 22. Ba4+ Kd8 23. Qb6+ Kc8 24. Nc4 Nd5 25. exd5 Qe2 26. Na5 and mates or 15...Ne7 16. a4 b5 17. c3 Qxb3 18. Nd2 Qc2 19. Rfc1 Qb2 20. Rcb1 Qc2 21. Bd1 |
|
| Jul-13-23 | | DanLanglois: <asiduodiego: 1. The myth of 14 Nb1, being a "super move" over-analyzed by the "soviet machine" is bunk. The move is good, but the computer says the position is completely equal. It's not a magic move by any means. Fischer's position started to went wrong after 15 ... d5!?, when 15 ... f5 or 15... Ne7 were the correct moves in this position.> I do not say even, that the move <14. Nb1> is particularly good. After 14...Qb4 15. Qe3: 
click for larger view15...Ne7 16. c3 Qa4 17. N1d2 Rc8:
click for larger viewBlack is at least fine. Of course Fischer played 15...d5?!: 
click for larger view16. exd5 Ne7 17. c4 Nf5 18. Qd3:
click for larger viewIf this isn't bad enough, Black plays 18...h4? This allows 19. Bg4! 
click for larger viewNow, 18...h4 might have been an idea, but after 18...Nf5, you want to prevent this business. White threatens to exchange with Bxf5, giving Black triple-isolated pawns. 19...Nd6?
click for larger viewThere was a problem, but 19...Ne7 was a better way to go with the knight. On d6, it's occupying a retreat square that would better be reserved for the queen. 20. N1d2
click for larger viewIf Black tries 20...Rc8, it's better, because it controls c5, preventing Nc5: 
click for larger viewSo okay, Next, we can criticize 20...f5? Just moving on, next is 21. a3 Qb6 22. c5 Qb5 23. Qc3: 
click for larger viewWhite is won. |
|
| Jul-13-23 | | DanLanglois: <Petrosianic: Yes, I think you're absolutely correct. Letting his queen be taken was probably a gesture of defiance. But no annotators explained this kind of thing very well.> Playing on might almost be seen as an act of defiance, but I'm not sure what Black can do. 24. a4 looks like this:
click for larger view<Petrosianic: Another head scratching moment for the beginner in this game is the sequence 24. a4 h3 25. axb5. Why does Fischer just let his Queen be taken!?> I don't know what exactly he's suppposed to do about it, the queen is trapped, right? <Petrosianic: If he's going to stay in the game at all, why not at least play Qxf1+, and get a Rook for it?> Note, Black's rook on h8 is also hanging. What's a rook? Playing 24...h3 might confuse matters, because 25. axb5, taking the queen, allowss 25...hxg2+, a check. Then, 26. Kxg2 Rh3 at least saves the rook. This being, of course, the way the game went. I don't love it, but I can't argue that 24...Qxf1+ is worth a bother. <Petrosianic: Gligoric lets the move pass without comment. Reshevsky gives the confusing comment, "If 24...Q-K7 25. QR-K1, QxRch; 26. RxQ, and White wins more material." Really? It looks like he wins less material than he does if Black just lets his Queen be taken. Two moves later, Reshevsky says "Why did Fischer continue with a queen down? Nobody had the answer!" Are you SURE 24...h3 was better than Qxf1?> This isn't a game for praising Fischer's moves. The burning question is when to resign.. I would resign before trying either of these moves. <Even now, it's hard to explain 24...h3 as anything but a coffeehouse attempt to create some kind of unimaginable tactic for Spassky to fall into.> We can ask what is the best move, even in a terrible position, though it's kind of academic. <Petrosianic: Maybe he was hoping that after 26...Rh3, Spassky wouldn't see that his queen was attacked, and continue with 27. cxd6 Rxc3. In this match, I wouldn't have been surprised. Or maybe it was some kind of bravado thing. "Take my Queen! It didn't hurt a bit!" That would have been fine if somebody had explained it.> Still not the worst move of the game, not by miles. |
|
| Jul-13-23 | | DanLanglois: <asiduodiego: Fischer's position started to went wrong after 15 ... d5!?, when 15 ... f5 or 15... Ne7 were the correct moves in this position.> After 15. Qe3:
click for larger viewBlack is fine here, though Black's queen needs to be airlifted out. By playing 15...Ne7, Black frees c6 for the queen, via ...Qa4. |
|
| Jul-13-23 | | sudoplatov: Lots of players don't do well in unclear positions; Fischer isn't alone there. Spielman (in The Art of Sacrifice) points out that an unexpected sacrifice has a physical effect on the opponent. Lasker liked these types of positions as did Marshall. |
|
| Jul-13-23 | | Gregor Samsa Mendel: <sudoplatov: Lots of players don't do well in unclear positions; Fischer isn't alone there.> What a bunch of hooey. It was well known that Fischer sought out unclear positions with the black pieces to maximize his chances of victory; it is true that they also increased his chances of defeat, but Fischer had enough confidence in his abilities to take this risk. His victories against the finest tactical players of his day are clear proof of his ability to work his way though muddled, tactical situations. He may have had a preference for "simple" positions when he had an advantage and his excellent technique guaranteed victory, but this by no means is proof that he didn't do well in unclear positions. |
|
| Jul-13-23 | | DanLanglois: I recall when Kasparov was just mincing people, even deliberately playing substandard moves because he gambled he could out-calculate his opponents in the resulting mess (which he did time and time again). I don't mean to insist that Fischer is so very different, though as to a problem with unclear chaotic postions on the attacking side, some players have this problem -- Karpov has this problem. |
|
Jul-13-23
 | | harrylime: Fischer is the Ultimate Universal chess player . |
|
Jul-13-23
 | | perfidious: In fairness, even before Fischer ascended to the throne, Geller wrote of how he would try to steer the game into sharp, irrational channels, as he managed to do in their encounter at Monte Carlo. It will be noted that Tal, brilliant amidst such chaos, discovered a decisive improvement on Fischer's play and used it to great effect. Fischer, could, moreover, lose his way in such sharp but unclear attacking lines as the Velimirovic, of which the celebrated loss to Larsen at Palma was a cautionary tale. He was, of course, deadly in sharp positions with a clear theme, the win vs Rubinetti from the above named event being a classic example. |
|
Jul-08-24
 | | Chessmaletaja: <Position after 18 ♕d3:>
click for larger viewFischer played
18...h4?.
In his book "Fischer - Spassky 1972" (2022), Tibor Karolyi suggest the move 18...exd5!.
Tibor says this move is weird and paradoxical as Black's king is in the centre, and Black opens the e-file. The idea is
19 cxd5? h4! 20 ♗g4 ♘g3+ 21 hxg3 ♗xg4.
The point seems to be that White's king is under attack, too. The move 18...exd5 opened not only the e-file but also the diagonal c8-h3. It isn't easy to believe that such an excellent tactician as Fischer did not see that. Therefore, one hypothesis, among others, is that Fischer forgot that he had not played exd5 as yet... |
|
Jan-15-25
 | | 6t4addict: Game Humor
SPASSKY'S "POISSON" IS POISON FOR FISCHER
Note: Poisson is French for fish |
|
Jan-15-25
| | perfidious: 'Poison', however, is the same in both languages, though pronounced with the stress on the second syllable in French. |
|
Mar-15-25
| | 6t4addict: Game Humor
FISCHER-MAN CATCHES POISONOUS "POISSON"
FISCHER WANTS "POISSON" BUT GETS POISON
Note: "Poisson" is French for fish. |
|
| Mar-16-25 | | ZonszeinP: Spassky thought for about 30 minutos before he played Nb1!? I seem to remember that he claimed to have found the move over the board... This probably has already being discussed here, but I can't remember, sorry. |
|
Mar-16-25
 | | beatgiant: <ZonszeinP> This is why we've got the "search thread" feature. A quick search for "over the board" shows that even you yourself have discussed it here before. Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 (kibitz #226) |
|
| Mar-16-25 | | stone free or die: <<beat> This is why we've got the "search thread" feature.> Only works for premies. |
|
| Mar-17-25 | | Petrosianic: <6t4addict> <Note: "Poisson" is French for fish.> It doesn't really help to know that without knowing what Spassky's fish was. It's not the French word for Pawn, which would make too much sense. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
sac: 23.Qc3