|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 60 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-11-04 | | Shadout Mapes: <SWAGATO BARMAN ROY> It's since been buried in pages of comments, but here's the analysis again: 11...Na4! is a very nice shot, and all lines lead to a win for black.
the line you give (12.Nxa4 Nxe4 13.Bxe7 Nxc5 14.Bxd8 Nxa4 15.Bg5 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Nxb2) leaves black completely winning, having openeed up a file to the white king. This is the best variation. after 12.Nxa4 Nxe4 black can also play 13.Qxe7, and black has 13...Qa5+ 14.b4 (best) 14...Qxa4 15.Qxe4 Re8 16.Be7 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Bf8! and the pin is decisive. now 18.Be2 Rxe7 19.Qb1 Rae8 20.Rd2 Qb5 21.Qd1 Qxb4 and black is winning. |
|
| Apr-12-04 | | iron maiden: I don't see why people say that Fischer's victory was due to a bunch of flaws in Byrne's play. The only move that can really be called a mistake is 11. Bg5, and that was only a small slip. IMO, that's another reason why this game is so amazing: that Fischer can punish Byrne's little blemish so brutally. |
|
| Apr-12-04 | | Benjamin Lau: 11. Bg5? is an obvious error, but more subtle was the misplacement of the white queen with 10. Qc5?! It looks like a very aggressive move and must have come very naturally to Byrne, however, the move is a bit too risky and the pressure on e6 was not worth it. So it's not really a single error being punished- it's an error and a dubious move, but iron maiden's point still stands- who here would have been able to refute those mistakes with such style? |
|
| Apr-14-04 | | Giancarlo: And who here would actually have the guts to sacrifice their queen? Be honest, no very many! |
|
| Apr-14-04 | | acirce: The queen sacrifice in itself, when the game has reached that position, isn't very complicated. I would certainly play it if I saw it. And also 17...Be6 is in fact forced, Black may be worse after other moves, so I would have no choice. :-) The impressive thing is of course the play and the combination leading to that position at all. |
|
| Apr-14-04 | | Giancarlo: <acirce>
"I would certainly play it if I saw it. "
Exactly my point. |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | TrueFiendish: I must be very courageous: if I'd seen Ba3!! in the famous Botvinnik-Capa encounter or Marshall's staggering Qg3!! or even Nezhmetdinov's amazing Rxf4!! I'd have played 'em all!
Of course, I would have had to have properly analysed all the ramifications of these moves before I played them, but that factor is included in my initial allegation. |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | ughaibu: Giancarlo: Have you never sacrificed a queen? |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | acirce: <Giancarlo> Was that your point? When you asked if we would have the _guts_ to do it, it seems as if it is already assumed that we had seen the possibility. It's easy to imagine another position where you see a possible queen sacrifice, and the variations SEEM to lead to your advantage when you calculate them in your head, but they are also so complicated that you don't dare play it because you lose if you have missed something. |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | woodenbishop: Games such as this one are as rare and beautiful as Haley's Comit. Young Fischer's end game ignited like fireworks... simply one of the best games ever played. |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | Stavrogin: A greatest hit, for sure. Wonderful feel reminding the hand (when lifting the pieces) of the feel of Morphy´s and Anderssens´s creations. Fischer at his best. I love his games that are won in this and similar fashion. He was so superior to his contemporaries, at least for a short while, that he often won by first winning a pawn and the just playing through it. Those games are less fun, even if not less impressive. But games like this one... Wonderful! |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | Giancarlo: All you make good points, all I wanted to see what you all thought. <Ughaibu> Yes, I have tryed the queen sac before, but I must say for most times, when there is one, I usually don't do it, but I have done the more obvious ones, which tend to be easy to spot. This one that Fischer did was magnificant |
|
Apr-15-04
 | | Sneaky: I don't even consider this a true queen sacrifice, as there is a forced gain of material for Black when White takes the queen. What I find most amazing about it is, besides the depth of the combination, is that the ways to refuse the queen also leave Black with a good advantage, something that must have been calculated many moves prior to the amazing ...Be6!! move. |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | ruylopez900: <Very good point Sneaky> It isn't a sacrifice if its clear that the player who gives up material regains equality (through mate, amazing attack or trapping pieces.) |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | iron maiden: But in this game, at least to me, it wasn't obvious at all that Black would get material compensation for the queen. Also, if Ruy's criteria of a sac is true ("it isn't a sacrifice if it's clear that the player who gives up material regains equality"), there would be no such thing as a sacrifice. |
|
| Apr-15-04 | | TrueFiendish: But what is "clear" to one player may be murky to a patzer like me. So if I make the sac not knowing all the ramifications, is it better than if a GM makes it having analysed them down to the nth degree? Is it only a sac when things are unclear? |
|
| Apr-16-04 | | acirce: I would say that Be6 is a genuine sacrifice since black doesn't _immediately_ get the material back, he has to calculate several moves ahead even if they are forced. Which doesn't mean that the sacrifice is complicated and very impressive in itself. As I said, what's impressive about it is that Fischer must have foreseen this position and the correct continuation many moves before, since Be6 is the only move that guarantees Black any advantage at all. |
|
| Apr-18-04 | | joydeepmukherjee: 'the' game where a queen is a helpless person! who said that losing a queen means losing the game?. the last position is noteworthy!!! great game! pleasure to view such games! |
|
| Apr-22-04 | | chessdr: Maybe someone can explain something to me that I have never understood about this game. All the books point out that after the critical move, 17. ... Be6, if white plays 18. QxN then QxB. But so what? After 19. PxQ BxQ, white is only a pawn down. Where is the forced win? 18. QxN seems the best way to escape from Fischer's trap with drawing chances. Any ideas? |
|
| Apr-22-04 | | iron maiden: <chessdr> You're right, 18. Qxc3 Qxc5 19. dxc5 Bxc3 would leave Byrne "only" a pawn down, but Black also has the bishop pair and, with the White h1-rook and king clumsily-placed, it would be nearly impossible for White to get a draw. |
|
| Apr-22-04 | | chessdr: I'm still not convinced. White's position is awkward, but after 18. Qxc3 Qxc5 19. dxc5 Bxc3 20. Bxe6 Rxe6 21. g3 black no longer has the bishop pair and white can begin to untangle. I still can't see a clear way in for black. Maybe a software program could find one. |
|
| Apr-22-04 | | Calchexas: <chessdr>: Although white seems to be better off after 18.Qxc3 Qxc5 etc., remember how easily Fischer sets up an excellently defended position in this game. The point is, Fischer's extra pawn could win the game for him after, say, trading rooks, because White's pieces couldn't do much against him. |
|
| Apr-22-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Being up a pawn is usually not enough to win although the bishop pair does make it easy for your opponent to screw up. Chessdr's line looks interesting, I will check it out later. |
|
| Apr-23-04 | | kingofdallas: Can some one explain why white doesnt play 16. Qxc3 or Bxf1?? |
|
| Apr-23-04 | | iron maiden: <kingofdallas> I presume you meant 16. Bxf8 (not Bxf1), after which 16...Bxf8 17. Qxc3 Bb4 wins the queen. After 16. Qxc3 Rfe8 17. Qe3 Qc7, Black regains the piece with a fierce attack. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 60 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 17...Be6
