|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-10-07 | | utssb: The arguments of 'drukenknight' are incomprehensible. Only empty insults towards Fischer, nothing more. |
|
| Jun-10-07 | | RookFile: Gligoric was a very strong player, no one need apologize for losing a game to him. |
|
| Jan-14-09 | | M.D. Wilson: This is a great game by Gligoric. His record against Fischer is impressive. One always gets the impression with Gligoric that he always knew what he wanted to do OTB and no one was going to get in his way. |
|
| Aug-04-10 | | elohah: I'll have to see what Mednis says about this. This is still complicated to me. |
|
| Dec-31-11 | | BwanaVa: Mednis (in "How to Beat Bobby Fischer) says Gligoricv sealed 43...Rxg2, and that Fischer resigned after Gligo demonstrated "the simple wins after 44. Kxg2 Qc1 eg 45.Kf3 Qf1+ 46.Ke3 Rh3+ 47.Kd4 Qf2+ 48. Kc4 Qc2+ 49. Kd3 Qc3 mate." |
|
| Dec-31-11 | | BwanaVa: As per comments above, Mednis also labels 41. Kg3? as the final blunder, saying that after 41.Kf3 there must be a win for black, but it is not elementary. If 41...Rf1+ 42.Kg3 Rxg2+ 43.Kxg2 Mednis feels White is better than in the game as the Black Rook is better positioned generally on h1 instead of f1, and on f1 the Rook takes g1 and h1 away from the Black Queen. |
|
Dec-31-11
 | | harrylime: Fischer was up against an empire.. a system.. a monolith. No other player in chess history has faced down such an opponent. Out of nothing, solitary, alone.... |
|
Dec-31-11
| | harrylime: My above post was meant for elsewhere would you believe ! It's new year and I've had a few lol |
|
| Dec-31-11 | | Nemesistic: OH SHUT THE F*@K UP <HARRYSLIME> < an empire.. a system.. a monolith.. > FISCHER WAS A CHESS PLAYER !!!
A......CHESS.......PLAYER !! Not CHRIST ALL EFFIN MIGHTY !! And iv'e had a few too..So for amusement purposes please tell me again WHY Fischer "Changed the world as we know it today"?? |
|
Dec-31-11
| | harrylime: You're a dick. Sober up. |
|
| Dec-31-11 | | Nemesistic: Your a knobhead.. Have an Appletini. |
|
Dec-31-11
| | harrylime: You don't know me anymore than I know you.. I can beat you at chess tho.. lol |
|
Dec-20-12
 | | HAPERSAUD: nice guys :), as usual chess commentary has moved from chess. keep it up. |
|
| Aug-22-14 | | ChessYouGood: Great win by Gligoric, punishing Fischer, whose only idea was to mindlessly thrust the kindside pawns |
|
| Aug-22-14 | | Howard: Could someone please call up his Uncle Fritz (or his nephew Houdini) and find out if 41.Kf3 would have held the draw ?! As one person pointed out earlier, according to Mednis, "there must be a win" for Black, nevertheless, but "it is not elementary." Surely Fritz and/or Rybka and/or Houdini could settle this once and for all, verdad ? |
|
| Feb-26-15 | | Howard: Hmmm....let me reiterate. Would 41.Kf3 have held the draw. As a previous commentator points out, Mednis stated in his book that "there must be a win for Black" even if Fischer DID play that move, but the win "is not elementary." But, then, back in 1975 (when the book came out), we didn't have Rybka, Houdini, Stockfish, etc. And I don't have a computer (yet). So, perhaps, someone could help us out here. WAS there a win after 43.Kf3 ?! |
|
| Feb-26-15 | | Nosnibor: According to Gligoric if 43Kf3,Rxg2.44Qxg2,Qc1 etc. wins |
|
| Feb-26-15 | | Retireborn: <Howard> Houdini gives 43.Kf3 Rf1+ wins easily: 44.Kg3 Rxg2+ 45.Kxg2 Qc1 46.Qe2 Rg1+ and White will eventually lose his Q or be mated. 44.Kf3 Rxg2 as given by Gligoric/<Nosnibor> also wins in much the same way. |
|
Feb-26-15
 | | AylerKupp: <Howard> According to Stockfish 6, after 43.Kf3 Black has two forced mates at d=36 (the second mate was originally discovered at d=28 in 17 moves) : 1. [-M10]: 41...Qf5+ 42.Rf4 Rd3+ 43.Qe3 Rf1+ 44.Rf2 Qh3+ (I've never seen such a perfect coordination of heavy pieces.) 45.Ke2 Rxe3+ 46.Kd2 Rc3 47.R4f3 Rxf3 48.Rxf1 Qxf1 49.f7 Qg2+ 50.Ke1 Rf1#
click for larger view2. [-M15]: 41...Qh5+ 42.Reg4 Qf5+ 43.Ke3 Qxe5+ 44.Kf2 Qf5+ 45.Ke3 Qxf6 (here the game is clearly won for Black but in comparison with the previous line, this approach seems overly materialistic) 46.Qc2 Qe5+ 47.Re4 Re1+ 48.Kf2 (48.Re2 Qg3#) 48...Rxe4 49.Rg3 Rf7+ 50.Kg2 Re2+ 51.Qxe2 Qxe2+ 52.Kh3 Rf4 53.Rd3 Qg4+ 54.Kh2 Rf2+ 55.Kh1 Qg2#
click for larger viewKomodo 8 indicates a similar result as early as d=19: 1. [-M10]: 41...Qf5+ 42.Rf4 Rh3+ 43.Kf2 Qxf4+ 44.Kg1 Qc1+ 45.Kf2 Qc5+ 46.Ke1 Rh1+ 47.Qf1 Qc1+ 48.Ke2 Qxf1+ 49.Ke3 Rd3+ 50.Ke4 Qf3#. Not as pretty as Stockfish's 10-move mate but just as effective.
click for larger view2. [-M17]: 41...Qh5+ 42.Reg4 Qf5+ 43.Ke3 Qxe5+ 44.Kf2 Qxf6+ 45.Qf3 Rf1+ 46.Kxf1 Qxf3+ 47.Kg1 Qe3+ 48.Rf2 Rf7 49.Rgg2 Qe1+ 50.Kh2 Rxf2 51.Rxf2 Qxf2+ 52.Kh1 Qxa2 (seems materialistic but the alternate approach 52...Kxh6 53.a4 takes longer because there are stalemating possibilities to be avoided) 53.Kg1 a4 54.Kh1 Qd2 55.Kg1 a3 56.Kh1 a2 57.Kg1 a1Q#
click for larger viewSo I'm afraid that in the case of this game the news of Fischer's possible survival were greatly exaggerated. |
|
| Feb-27-15 | | Howard: Guys, thanks very, very much ! So Mednis was right---there "must" have been a win after 41.Kf3....and there was ! |
|
| Feb-28-15 | | Howard: HOLD IT !
There's a typo in a couple of the above comments, and I helped perpetuate it. Fischer's opportunity to play 43.Kf3 was indeed on the 43rd move-----NOT the 41st one. A reader posted "41.Kf3" in a December, 2011 comment, and I just echoed it yesterday. To repeat, the key position is from where Fischer could have played 43.Kf3--not "41.Kf3". Besides, playing Kf3 on the 41st move would have lost on the spot. And it turns out.....Muller's excellent book on Fischer's games DOES explain briefly why 43.Kf3 would have lost. But then a couple sharp-eyed readers (and their silicon friends) show in much more detail why it would have lost, too. Just wanted to clarify that ! |
|
| Jan-04-16 | | Howard: Remind me to dig up my copy of Mednis' book, so as to review this game. |
|
Jan-04-16
| | tamar: Dig up Mednis! |
|
| Apr-22-17 | | Howard: One of these days, I'm gonna look at the above-posted analysis as to why Fischer would have lost after 43..Kf3. Just haven't gotten around to it yet. |
|
Aug-04-21
 | | keypusher: <Howard: One of these days, I'm gonna look at the above-posted analysis as to why Fischer would have lost after 43..Kf3. Just haven't gotten around to it yet.>
And now, alas, it appears that he never will.
Extending the variation already posted by <retireborn> SF gives simply 43.Kf3 Rxg2 44. Qxg2 (44.Kxg2 transposes to the game) 44....Qc1 threatening 45....Rf1+ 46.Ke2 (if the K goes to the g-file then ...Rg1) 46....Qe1+ 47.Kd3 Qb1+ 48.Ke3 (48.Qc2 Rf3+ wins material; 48.Kd4 Rd1+ 49.Ke3 Re1+ transposes to the 48.Ke3 line) 48....Rd1+ 49.Kf4 g5+ 50.Kxg5 Qxe4 51.Qxe4+ Rxe4 52.f7 Rxe5+ 53.Kf6 Rf5+ 54.Kxe6 Rxf7 (of course there are other ways, but this is basic) 55.Kxf7 c5 and Black gets a new queen. After 43.Kf3 Rxg2 44.Qxg2 Qc1 the engine comes up with 45.Re2 Rf1+ 46.Rf2 Qc3+ 47.Kg4 Qd4+ 48.Kf3 Qxf2+ and Black wins the king and pawn ending, or 45.f7 Rf1+ and Black grabs the advanced pawn and then resumes the attack. All in all, a little more complicated than you might think, but Gligoric would have had an adjournment to work all this out. The finale is reminiscent of Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927. Both games are kind of like the old video game Space Invaders once you break through to the back -- the defending Q and R can't keep the attacking Q and R off the white king. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
