|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-02-13 | | offramp: I may be wrong - could someone check? - but I think this match may have set a record in that 100% of the games were QGDs. Not 90%, not 99 & 44/100.... 100%! |
|
| Aug-02-13 | | BlackFront: <I may be wrong - could someone check? > Not this again... |
|
| Aug-02-13 | | BlackFront: <Now that one retired and the other passed away, we could start to recognize that this match is one of the greatest encounters in Chess history...> Disagree, because there was only ever going to be one winner. |
|
Aug-02-13
 | | diceman: <Petrosianic:
Timman's effort is fairly tepid, and focused more on making excuses for Fischer's excuses than anything else.>.…but remember, <Petrosianic> just loves Fischer. |
|
| Nov-30-13 | | Everett: <keypusher> are you referring to this game? Keres vs Bronstein, 1956
It was round 1 |
|
| Dec-01-13 | | Cushion: I am probably missing something obvious, but why is this a draw? Bxd6 Rxd6 Rc7 and it seems like white has chances. I guess b6 Bxa6 bax5 b5 doesn't promise much, though. |
|
| Dec-01-13 | | Everett: I got the game wrong. It was the Ruy, when Bronstein blew the advantage and lost. |
|
Dec-01-13
 | | perfidious: <Everett>: Have you ever read the Keres/Kotov book on the middlegame in which Keres writes on Bronstein vs Keres, 1956? |
|
| Dec-02-13 | | Everett: <perfidious: <Everett>: Have you ever read the Keres/Kotov book on the middlegame in which Keres writes on Bronstein vs Keres, 1956?> I have not. What am I missing (if it is not too much trouble) |
|
Dec-02-13
| | perfidious: <Everett>: In the seventies, I acquired a British Penguin (or Pocket) edition of that work; I assume it is out of print and have not seen my copy in years. Some bibliophiles who might be able to help on that score are <parisattack>, <FSR> or <jnpope>. Don't know whether it was ever printed here in the states. As to the material, Keres gives a thorough analysis of that middlegame in one chapter of the book. As one would expect from him, it is lucid and painstakingly objective. |
|
| Oct-20-16 | | offramp: <Everett: <keypusher> are you referring to this game?
Keres vs Bronstein, 1956
It was round 1>
He was referring to Bronstein vs Keres, 1956. |
|
| Oct-20-16 | | ewan14: Spassky - Keres , Spassky - Tal 1965
Spassky Korchnoi 1968
memorable matches |
|
Oct-20-16
 | | thegoodanarchist: <keypusher: <<<Is it an accident of my imagination or did candidates tournaments produce more memorable games than candidates matches?>>>
It's an interesting question. There is something of a selection bias at work.> Good point.
For candidates matches, there is an opportunity for bias as well. As you know the format was changed in large part due to Fischer, because he recognized the tournament format favored the Soviets, who worked together to exclude the players from outside the Soviet Union, through tactics such as agreeing to draws amongst themselves, etc. People who, like me, dislike the Soviet interventionism and attempts to rig the outcome, and want to see a fair system, may have an emotional bias in favor of candidates matches. This of course does not rule out other biases as well. |
|
Oct-20-16
| | thegoodanarchist: <vonKrolock: Now that one retired and the other passed away, we could start to recognize that this match is one of the greatest encounters in Chess history: Smyslov, forty-two years the senior to Kasparov - a battle of the generations - imagine if Morphy had played a match in 1860 - not vs Staunton, but vs Labourdonnais ( just or almost forty-two years older than Morphy) ... or, figure out if we could follow the games of a match Fischer vs a player born around 1985, played in 2006 ... or a match Schlechter vs Keres played in 1937 ... or Capablanca vs Korchnoi as the Candidates final in the early fifties: should we consider those encounters less than all time wonders (regardless of the score or the fact than one of the players had not scored some win?) - No, each game is a wonder in itself!!> Upon reading your post, I immediately thought of Fischer - Reshevsky (1961) But checking into the age difference, it was less than 32 years. That is still more than a generation apart, though. |
|
| Oct-20-16 | | Petrosianic: <thegoodanarchist> <As you know the format was changed in large part due to Fischer, because he recognized the tournament format favored the Soviets, who worked together to exclude the players from outside the Soviet Union, through tactics such as agreeing to draws amongst themselves, etc.> There's no evidence they actually did any such thing, although the potential is there (GM draws have plagued chess for a century). The "et cetera" was the claim that Korchnoi threw games to the others, but that was a wild claim Fischer made in haste and tried to ignore later. According to Korchnoi, Fischer never mentioned it to him and probably realized how ridiculous it was. |
|
| Oct-20-16 | | Petrosianic: A lot of that talk was sour grapes. Somebody did a statistical analysis years back to try to show that if you go by retroactive ratings, a non-Soviet should have become challenger. The problem is that they ignored the actual results. There's only one Westerner who ever scored higher than +1 in a Candidates Tournament, and that was Reshevsky in 1953. |
|
| Oct-20-16 | | vasja: Can I see more than my Teacher? Would not 18.Nxd5 win on the spot? |
|
Oct-20-16
 | | keypusher: <vasja: Can I see more than my Teacher? Would not 18.Nxd5 win on the spot?> 18...exd5. The rook on c8 is defended twice. |
|
Oct-21-16
| | thegoodanarchist: <There's no evidence they actually did any such thing> I am glad you are here to tell us what is evidence, and what isn't. Many years ago at this very website there was a lively discussion about the matter of Soviet intervention in the chess world, in order to subvert a fair outcome of tournaments, WC cycles, etc. At that time, I think that everything that I would have wanted to say, I in fact did say. Here it is many years later, and you can assure us of the moral rectitude of the Soviet regime. Good to know. |
|
| Oct-22-16 | | RookFile: I don't know what you would look for regarding evidence. Sort of laughable when you think about it. You're not going to open some archive 50 years from now and read a signed confession from these guys. |
|
| Nov-26-18 | | offramp: <Vasja>, if 18.Nxd5,
click for larger view
then 18...exd5 looks reasonable. |
|
| Nov-27-18 | | andrewjsacks: Smyslov is, generally, the most underrated WC. He was a shade better than Botvinnik in the mid-1950's. |
|
Nov-27-18
| | keypusher: <andrewjsacks: Smyslov is, generally, the most underrated WC. He was a shade better than Botvinnik in the mid-1950's.> How do you figure? Botvinnik won the 1952 Soviet championship (Smyslov finished 7th-9th), they drew their first WC match in 1954, Smyslov finished equal first in the 1955 Soviet championship a half-point ahead of Botvinnik, and they tied for first at the Alekhine Memorial. Smyslov beat Botvinnik by 3 in the '57 WC match and Botvinnik beat Smyslov by 2 in the '58 match. In short, in the mid-50s they were as even as two chessplayers can be.
The one thing you can say for sure is that Botvinnik was a decade older. |
|
| Nov-27-18 | | Petrosianic: <thegoodanarchist>: <I am glad you are here to tell us what is evidence, and what isn't.> To the contrary, I'm pointing out that you made such a claim yourself, then failed to demonstrate it, or even attempt to. That was naughty. |
|
Nov-27-18
| | perfidious: <thegreatwanker....I am glad you are here to tell us what is evidence, and what isn't....> Wot, a little miffed that you didn't get there first? Turrble that, in your mind anyway, someone may have preempted your divine 'right' to control every thought, deed and post here at CG. <....At that time, I think that everything that I would have wanted to say, I in fact did say....> When you have ever <not> maundered on interminably about this or that, as though anyone really gives a hairy rodent's fundament? <....Here it is many years later, and you can assure us of the moral rectitude of the Soviet regime. Good to know.> lmao
As you bestride CG once more as an 'elite poster', proclaiming your own rectitude beyond cavil. Utterly risible. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
