|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-20-05 | | ughaibu: Offramp! |
|
| Jan-10-06 | | Laskerfan82: Beautiful game. The old Geller apparently never lost his spark. |
|
Jul-10-06
 | | waddayaplay: This game was considered the best of Informator 49. Geller was at the time 64 or 65 years old. |
|
| Sep-30-06 | | notyetagm: Geller really was a truly great combination/tactical player. |
|
| Sep-30-06 | | notyetagm: <Tigran Petrosian: Geller was probably the best combinative player in the world at his prime.> Geller or Tal? Who would you pick as the best -combination- player, not the best overral chess player? |
|
| Sep-30-06 | | Jack Sprat: <notyetagm:Geller or Tal?> Geller was the more thorough calculator of the two but he took too much time in making his calculations; he often got into time trouble. The great Tal, on the other hand, often went with his instinct in making calculations, and this sometimes allowed himself to be overcome. Another difference is that Geller had no poker face. If he was in trouble, his face showed it. Fisher said it was very easy to read Geller. For these reasons, Geller never became WCH. |
|
| Sep-30-06 | | notyetagm: This is really a tremendous attacking game by Geller. |
|
| Aug-13-07 | | popski: Yea, those were all great tactical virtuosos, but dont forget Rashid Gibiatovich Nezhmetdinov from that era. |
|
| Sep-08-07 | | notyetagm: <waddayaplay: This game was considered the best of Informator 49. Geller was at the time 64 or 65 years old.> Simply amazing.
|
|
| Sep-08-07 | | Giearth: Just wondering, is 12...♘e7 worse than the text 12...♗e7? |
|
| Sep-09-07 | | Peter Nemenyi: Tal and Geller differed a lot in how they got the positions in which their combinative genius could flourish. Tal would play moves without too much concern for their objective soundness if they served his purpose of drawing the opponent into a tactical shootout. Geller was much more a student of the openings--the best of his era, apart from Fischer--and often lured his opponents into danger with theoretical novelties. |
|
| Oct-06-07 | | Manic: <Giearth> I think it is worse as after 12...Ne7 13.Re1 threatens to win back the piece with Nxd6 and Ba3. |
|
| Nov-17-07 | | Giearth: Never thought anyone would answer my question at all. :) Thanks anyway <Manic>, although my question was posted 2 months ago and the answer came 1 month later (ago?!)... ;) |
|
Feb-18-08
 | | fm avari viraf: Beautiful & lively game with full of high tactics by the seasoned Geller. 25.Qf5 white is threatening to win the Queen. If ...Rd7 26.Re8+ Rxe8 27.Qxc2. |
|
| Mar-08-08 | | sitzkrieg: <Another difference is that Geller had no poker face. If he was in trouble, his face showed it. Fisher said it was very easy to read Geller. For these reasons, Geller never became WCH.>
I read the contrary. Only one anecdote of Geller in this way, indeed against Fischer. But this had to do with a draw offer of Fischer. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | Augalv: If it was so easy to read Geller how come Fischer ended up with a losing record against him? |
|
| Nov-09-08 | | Open Defence: < Augalv: If it was so easy to read Geller how come Fischer ended up with a losing record against him? > well Kasparov did not have a poker face either... it probably does not matter in chess... the only thing that matters is probably the moves you finally make on the board... the off board events might influence your play, but finally its the actual move that counts |
|
Sep-20-10
 | | Richard Taylor: I disagree ... in difficult situations and in opening some lines a poker face is very useful and also the way you move - psychology is big in chess. That is what differentiates us from computers. Fischer used psych - even the way he moved at the board had an effect on his adversaries. In one Interzonal he was only a point (possibly a half point only) ahead of Keres. It is clear Keres was affected by certain adverse results (and sometimes bad luck). See "Pachman's Decisive Games". This shows key psychological moments in chess where there result is very much NOT the moves as such in many many decisive (even World Championship) results. Good moves? Anyone can make good moves. You have to make the right moves at the right time against the right opponent. |
|
| Apr-04-12 | | zukozuko: what a beautiful game |
|
| Apr-04-12 | | Jim Bartle: #1 rated game in the first Informator I ever saw (well, #1 from the previous one, #49). It narrowly beat out Miles vs DeFirmian, 1990 and Portisch vs DeFirmian, 1989. |
|
| Aug-03-12 | | Poisonpawns: Blunder alert! Black was O.K but under pressure. Dreev chooses 18..Qa2? Losing immediately. The saving move is 18..Qa5!; now if Bxg7? 0-0-0! The tables start to shift in blacks favor. 
click for larger view
If white chooses to take the rook on h8, he loses after Rxd2 
click for larger view
Therefore after 18..Qa5! white must content himself with 19.Nf1 avoiding the coming pin 19..Rd8 20.Qg4! f5 21.Qxg7 fxe4 22.Qxh8 fxe4 with a very sharp position. 
click for larger view
White is down a piece but has full compensation due to the exposed nature of blacks king. Respect to Geller for a great game! |
|
| Jan-16-13 | | Balmo: Still one of my favourite games of all time by one of the all time greats. |
|
| Jan-16-13 | | FadeThePublic: After Dreevs' comments against Magnus, it seems well timed to show this game. Dreev is such a egomaniac. |
|
Jan-16-13
 | | perfidious: < Richard Taylor: I disagree ... in difficult situations and in opening some lines a poker face is very useful and also the way you move - psychology is big in chess....> Psychology plays a role without question: it was all well and good for Fischer to make the pronouncement that he did not believe in psychology, but good moves, but he was known to make such off-the-cuff remarks in his writings and have them treated as red-hot gospel. <....In one Interzonal he was only a point (possibly a half point only) ahead of Keres....> Fischer and Keres never met at the interzonal stage-two tournament games were played between them and their remaining eight encounters were in candidates tournaments. <....Good moves? Anyone can make good moves. You have to make the right moves at the right time against the right opponent.> This can indeed be the case, and is certainly true in poker if one wishes to excel in that field. |
|
Jan-21-13
| | Richard Taylor: I was referring to results in Pachman's book and it was probably a Candidates tourney but the difference between such players is always very small - Keres all but won. he was as close as Fischer to challenging again for the World Champs. It is typical by the way of these World Champions to avoid matches - Alekine avoided Capablanca and so on. (Blamed his loss on drinking but then why did he drink? Scared of the challenger of sure..)After he won in 1972, Fischer only played bunnies, such as the rather dementiad Spassky...whereas Botvinnik played matches for years as did Korchnoi, Karpov and Kasparov..the three Ks Do you play Poker? I don't it is stupid game for the stupid... |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 11.Bxc4