|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 17 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-26-05
 | | Open Defence: Yeah Capa is said to have never studied openings.
I think sometimes you need to look at the board with fresh eyes. |
|
Feb-26-05
 | | Gypsy: <DutchDunce> A good article. But if you find pleasure in studying openings, by all means keep the course -- chess is about having (intellectual) fun! I'd just add in a good doseage of some of the other stuff for better practical results. I think <Rama> captures it best when he describes the boost of <confidence> he suddenly found when he realized he could rely on his tactical abilities. When it comes to any human performance, self-confidence is clearly a necessary ingredient, if not also sufficient. Unfortunately, for the reasons given in the article and then some, partial knowledge of opening theory often saps, rather than boosts, player's confidence. It does not have to be so however, if the opening theory study is also suported by knowledge and skill in strategy and tactics, middlegame, and endgame. |
|
| May-14-05 | | GreatGrecosGhost: I have to say this is my favorite game of all time.
7...d5 creates a hole on c5. Fischer
8. c4! Forcing black to accept an isolated pawn in a fairly open position. 11. Nc3 makes it appear that his strategy is to attack this pawn, but he is actually playing for the hole on c5. 12. Qa4+ looking to trade queens
13. Re1! forces the trade of queens on White's terms, that is with the knight eyeing the hole on c5, while moving his rook to an open file. 15. Be3 eyeing the c5 square.
16. Bc5 forces black to give up his good bishop and by extension the two bishops in an open position, while removing c5's last defender. 18. b4 sets up the support point for his knight.
19. Nc5 white now has his powerful knight against white's bad bishop. However, the d pawn is isolated and will most likely fall allowing white's bishop dominate the knight later in the endgame. 20. f3! Taking advanced squares away from black's knight. 22. Nd7!! Fischer trades his wonderful knight for Black's bad bishop. Normally this is bad but Fischer is already looking ahead to the endgame. 23. Rc1! Now all of the sudden we are in the endgame rook and minor piece endgame. White's Rooks have nice homes on open files. While black's are trapped in passive roles defending weak pawns. White has a Bishop that can jump to either side of the board in the even a passed pawn is created, while black's knight has to waste tempos to get to a centralized position because of the pawn on f3. It's amazing because Fischer doesn't directly attack the isolated pawn, he exploits a weak square to force an illogical trade that removes all of black's counter play. The only imbalances that now matter are white's. |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | ttr2121: GreatGrecosGhost: Like you I like this game very much too. It is the epitome of elegance by Fischer and the one of the best examples I can find of converting one advantage to another progressively until you win. Granted, the opening was a poor choice by Petrosian, but the manner in which he was dispatched is beautiful, clear, simple chess. Fischer simply makes this look so easy that anyone could do it. Don't we all wish! |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | e4Newman: I just read an excellent book written near the time of Fischer's comeback - "Fischer's Approach" or something like that. This game was hi-lighted as an example of Fischer's strategic vision. Excellent book by the way. |
|
| Jun-01-05 | | Strategic Joker: Another tip i can give to improve chess is exercise , people with good stamina usually concentrate better and tend to perform better, dont smoke or drink and eat healthy a healthy player is a strong player , trust me in those 4 or more hour games stamina is a huge plus :)- |
|
| Jul-25-05 | | who: Why did Fischer get white 4 times in the match against Petrosian? |
|
| Jul-25-05 | | Whitehat1963: <who>, I don't think he did. I think these are all of the games: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | who: O.k. why did Fischer get white five times and petrosian only 4? |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | PARACONT1: <who> I'm wondering if you're being serious with that query LOL. Just in case you are, thenhere's why:
1) The match was to be a maximum of 12 games with who scoring 6.5 points first will be declared the winner
2) Fischer drew white for Game 1.
3) Had the match ended 6-6 then both players would have played with thw white pieces a total of 6 times.
4) Since it didn't and Fischer got his 6.5 points in 9 games, that explains why he had the white pieces 5 times and Petrosian had it for 4 times.Hope it helps! |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | who: I was being serious and thanks. I didn't realize that it was a best of 12. What happens in case of a draw? |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | seeminor: Going back to the endgame, Capablancas had an excellent approach. According to one russian grandmaster, he and his friends were sitting studying an endgame trying to figure out the best way to win for white. At this point Capa wandered over, obviously the thought of such a player helping with a problem was very exciting so they asked Capa to take a look. The cuban did so and instead of suggesting moves he simply picked up pieces and moved them around the bored. When he had finished he said "that is whites ideal position." basically when in an endgame you should try to work out where your pieces would be ideally placed genrally and work towards that end as best you can. Endgames never seemed that frightening after reading that! |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | sibilare: < who: > Did a bit of research on this and came up with the below statement. "In May 1950, Bronstein tied with Isaak Boleslavsky for 1st/2nd place in the Candidates' event at Budapest. The playoff was held a few months later in Moscow. After 12 regulation games the match was tied (+2-2=8), but Bronstein won the right to challenge Botvinnik by scoring the first full point in a sudden death continuation." Taken from below link.
http://chess.about.com/od/worldcham... Even thou this rule stated in 1950. It probably the same rule in 1971. |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | Whitehat1963: <who>, <sibilare> and <PARACONT1>, I'm just guessing here, but considering that Fischer beat Taimanov and Larsen 6 games to 0 to win both matches before he went on to play Petrosian, I suspect that they were all 10-game matches and the winner had to score 5.5 points to win. Had they been 12-game matches, the winner would have had to have scored 6.5 points. As for why Fischer played white five times to Petrosian's four, let's say (and I think this is how it went) Fischer draws white for the first game and loses. He's down 0-1. Now he plays black, alternating black and white the rest of the way. They draw the next three games. Score: Petrosian - 2.5, Fischer - 1.5. Then Fischer wins the next four games. Score: Fischer - 5.5, Petrosian 2.5. They played a total of nine games before it was mathematically impossible for Petrosian to win or tie. Fischer, drawing white first, plays white five times, Petrosian plays white four times. |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | Whitehat1963: Whoops I gave the wrong info above. This link should clear it all up: http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/707... |
|
| Jul-26-05 | | sibilare: It was a 12 game match. First player to win six games or score 6.5 first won the match. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | who: So Fischer did have an advantage by getting white first. |
|
| Aug-03-05 | | Whitehat1963: I guess so, but someone has to. |
|
| Aug-03-05 | | RookFile: Except that Petrosian was ready for Fischer with the novelty of the year,
in the first game. By all rights Petrosian should have won that game. Fischer found some terrific defensive moves to keep himself alive. |
|
| Oct-06-05 | | Kriegspiel: In one of Seirawan's books, he gives 33...Nxb4, not f4 as shown here. It doesn't appear to be an isolated typo because he then goes on to explain why Black doesn't go on to play a series of moves starting with 34...Nc6. On the other hand, I note a number of typos in this book. So, which is correct: 33...Nxf4 or 33...Nxb4? Kriegspiel
|
|
| Oct-08-05 | | SamerAdra: I'm surprised neither player cared for 13. Bb5, winning the exchange. |
|
Oct-08-05
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Petrosian wanted to sacrifice the Exchange for a pawn, plus a misplaced White Queen, the advantage of two Bishops and prospects for a King side attack starting with 0-0, Bc8-b7 and d5-d4. Fischer was in one of his Capablanca moods--keep it nice and simple. |
|
| Nov-08-05 | | seeminor: 13. Bb5 would have suited Petrosian, it would free his game and he would ahve good play |
|
| Nov-08-05 | | RookFile: Well, 13. Re1 illustrates a truism about Fischer's play: in his hands,
an advantage with the initiative is
as good as being a queen ahead.
If you can win like this, why allow
your opponent counter chances? |
|
| Nov-09-05 | | BadTemper: Why didn't fischer win the exchange with 13. Bb5! |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 17 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
