|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-07-21
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Nice endgame squees by Reshevsky even if Fischer could have saved the game. Incidentally, 9...Bf6 does not appear in the DB after 1984 (and fares poorly), whilst 9...f6 appeared as recently as 2019. |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | Sim1: Title is quite a subtle pun on Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games". Nice. I like it. |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: Now we need puns based on the book Profile of a Prodigy. |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | Cheapo by the Dozen: Or Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. |
|
Apr-07-21
 | | AylerKupp: <Sim1> Title is quite a subtle pun on Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games"> I don't know about the subtleness part, particularly since the title for yesterday's game was "My One Memorable Game". But, of course, these titles were suggested some time ago, and it was maybe a coincidence that we had back to back Fischer games and each of their titles had the word "Memorable" in them. Or perhaps <chessgames.com> decided that it was time for a "Memorable" week and selected these games, and their titles, on purpose. I wonder if there are any more like that? I also don't believe the rumor that Reshevsky played 59.Kc8 rather than the obvious (at least to me) 59.Kc7 which might have resulted in an immediate resignation by Fischer just so that we could have a GOTD title candidate for the words "60 Memorable". Most likely, since Reshevsky was probably in time trouble as he often was and the second time control was probably at 60 moves, Fischer just wanted to make sure that Reshevsky made the time control before he resigned. And time trouble might have been the reason why Reshevsky played 58.Kc8 instead of 59.Kc7. Maybe he was subconsciously tying to promote his king to a queen? Of course, other possible candidates for this game's title could have been "When Reshevsky Was Still Reshevsky" or "When Fischer Was Not Yet Fischer", but that would have spoiled the "Memorable" week. However, "Not One Of My Sixty Memorable Games" would have maintained the opportunity, although that is probably a candidate for the title for most of Fischer's published losses. |
|
Apr-07-21
| | AylerKupp: Ha! I just noticed that the aphorism displayed when I posted my previous comment was "No one ever won a game by resigning". Most appropriate to my theory of why 59.Kc8 (which is what I should have said) instead of 59.Kc7 and yet another coincidence. |
|
Apr-07-21
 | | keypusher: <However, "Not One Of My Sixty Memorable Games" would have maintained the opportunity, although that is probably a candidate for the title for most of Fischer's published losses.> <AK>
As I'm sure you know, three of Fischer's losses actually made the cut for 60MG: Fischer vs Tal, 1959 Spassky vs Fischer, 1960 Fischer vs Geller, 1967 |
|
Apr-07-21
| | AylerKupp: <<keypusher> As I'm sure you know, three of Fischer's losses actually made the cut for 60MG> Yes, particularly the last one against Geller, which "I" (in reality multiple engines) analyzed extensively. But I consider them all memorable for one reason or another; for example Spassky beating Fischer when opening with the King's Gambit! How can that game not be memorable since (I think) motivated Fischer to discover "A Bust to the King's Gambit" (http://brooklyn64.com/wp-content/up...)? Made even more memorable, at least to me, was his concluding line: "14...Nxd4 And Black wins... Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently." A quote which I have paraphrased and used multiple times. Which just reinforces my point, 3 lost opportunities for their title to have been "Not One Of My 60 Memorable Games". :-) Although this is not really always true; some of a player's losses are their most memorable, as was Lasker vs W Napier, 1904 which the loser, Napier, considered to be his best game ever, even though he lost it. I certainly consider the game that I resigned because I thought I was being back rank-mated even though I had a winning position to be among my most memorable, but not in a good way. :-( |
|
Apr-07-21
 | | beatgiant: <Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently.> Fischer cited Weaver Adams as the inspiration for that line, but I haven't been able to find the original source (probably in Adams' book _White to Play and Win_, but I don't have a copy). |
|
Apr-07-21
 | | perfidious: We also know that <AK> has a thing, come to Fischer, going back to 1966, when he simply had to have the last word in an encounter with the great man himself. |
|
Apr-07-21
 | | harrylime: Bobby is the greatest.
In ten years time I will look back at my post just now and go silly all over it xxx |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | Caissanist: Was this Reshevsky's masterpiece? I've heard a lot of praise for this game over the years. |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | Caissanist: Arnold Denker singles out 14..gxf5 for criticism: <Black's fluid pawn center will lack dynamic punch without the King's Bishop as backup muscle: the preferred move in this position is NxBP>. Since Bobby never played this line again then presumably he thought that either gxf5 or one of the moves leading up to it was wrong. |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | Olavi: It's a rather colourless game with Fischer missing a draw in the rook ending. I'm not sure whether the Reshevsky masterpiece exists, he was a tenacious slugger... maybe Reshevsky vs Capablanca, 1935 from his youth, maybe Reshevsky vs Fischer, 1965 (although that's a bit easy) or Reshevsky vs Polugaevsky, 1970 |
|
Apr-07-21
| | perfidious: Black will usually recapture with pawn in these KID middlegames, as he has no desire to present his opponent the strong square at e4 for free; but once White plays f4 following ....gxf5, ....e4, an otherwise standard motif, becomes undesirable for more than one reason. |
|
Apr-07-21
| | AylerKupp: <<perfidious> We also know that <AK> has a thing, come to Fischer, going back to 1966, when he simply had to have the last word in an encounter with the great man himself.> "We" don't know that. For one thing, it's not restricted to Fischer, I do that to anyone who (like you) has wrong impressions about me. Like Fischer did. And then only if I care to do so. Which I did. And, just to clear things up, I think that Fischer was a great chess player, arguably the best one ever. But a "great man"? Most definitely not. |
|
Apr-07-21
| | AylerKupp: <<harrylime> In ten years time I will look back at my post just now and go silly all over it xxx> Why is it going to take you ten years? You should be able to look at it now and go silly all over it. |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | An Indianman: Good evening: I can’t believe it’s not butter! I mean, I can’t believe Fischer lost! |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | DouglasGomes: Does some genius know the endgame status on 36 ... Rc5 37. Rxc5 bxc5 38. Kg3 Kh5 (not the Kg5 that was analyzed by Kasparov)? If 39. h4, then 39...g5, otherwise I don't see many promising moves for white. |
|
| Apr-07-21 | | Atking: At 18 years old Fischer wasn't still the Champion he has been latter. That's all. |
|
| Apr-08-21 | | Atking: Yet 5 years latter -until now almost equal - the result between these two champions was clearly in Ficher s favor (4 wins 2 draws). |
|
| Apr-08-21 | | RookFile: Since you're talking about age that means Reshevsky was in his mid 50's then. Tennis has a senior circuit, it's too bad Reshevsky couldn't play in such a league. |
|
Apr-08-21
| | beatgiant: <DouglasGomes> Have you already checked out the Aug-05-05 post by <Sergey Sorokhtin> on page 1 of the kibitzing here? He investigated the same question at great length and concluded that your suggested line with ...Kh5 saves the game. |
|
| Apr-08-21 | | RandomVisitor: After 8.Be3 Stockfish likes 8...Re8 after 17 hours of 'thought'.
click for larger view Stockfish_21033108_x64_modern:
<69/90 16:48:00 +0.16 8...Re8> 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.h3 Be6 11.Rc1 h6 12.b3 Qxd1 13.Rfxd1 Rac8 14.Ne1 Bf8 15.Nd5 Bg7 16.Bf3 Nd4 17.Bxd4 exd4 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 |
|
Jul-03-22
 | | plang: Six months earlier at the 1960 US Championship Fischer had played 12..Ne8 against Reshevsky and White had obtained an edge though the game was drawn; 12..Nd7 was new. The formation after 12..Nd7 is identical with a main line of the Orthodox Taimanov (E98-9) with the one difference that the dark-squared bishops have been exchanged. Nowadays this is considered to be dubious for Black as the weak dark squares on the kingside may leave him vulnerable to an attack. 20 Bd3!? led to the win of a pawn at the cost of a weakened pawn structure; 20 Nd4 would have been a more solid alternative. Reshevsky was clearly open to testing his younger opponent in a technical endgame. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
