|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-13-03 | | ughaibu: Portisch wipes out Spasky's kings gambit, winning the exchange. But then Spassky gradually gets more and more control and eventually wins. Spassky playing like Lasker! |
|
| Feb-13-03 | | drukenknight: 6 g3 looks a little passive, I might go for 6 h4
what is wrong w/ 9...g3?
it looks like a much earlier ....f4 played after 000 would open up the diagonal for the B on c8. |
|
| Feb-13-03 | | drukenknight: doesnt Portischs combo work better if he starts: 11...Rg8? |
|
| Feb-13-03 | | judokausa1: I think people are confused about this game. g3 is a common move attacking black's over extended kingside pawn structure. Spassky seems fine in this game, even out of the opening. While it is not a win the position is at best unclear. Take a moment to examine the position after 17.c3. White has a huge center and kingside space advantage. his control over d4. d5 and e4, e5 is difficult to contest. Black's h and f pawns are isolated and targets. Black's only advantage is his passed pawn which is a LOOOONG way from being a threat and his extra rook. but even that has no way of entering into white's position. Once Spassky gets the two bishops I definitely think that he has the easier game. Although it is not necessarily a win for white. |
|
| Feb-14-03 | | drukenknight: jk I can tell you dont have much experience with Kings Gambits. Spassky is not fine. 6 g3? is a mistake. Why? Because every time you play a kings gambit there is some N or B sack involved: the muzio, the douible muzio, the algaier, there are some great ones on the Becker (the ...h6 defense), the long whip. etc. Okay not every time, but what you do see every time is this balance between giving up a minor piece and the connected pawns on the king side. Even in semi closed kings gambit, when material is even, you will still see this dynamic, you still this balancing act. so what? Whenever you play these lines along enuf time you eventually find a line that holds. ANd in just about every line, one side gives up a piece and the other gets compensation in the form of connected pawns. I'm talking kings gambits in general, not all openings. Just the vast majority of kings gambits i've seen/played balance off like that. Either white gives up a piece and gets better pawns or vice versa. Here the g3 move just blows up whites pawns w/o any compensation in the way of a piece. If g3 is a blunder than the best move should be 6...fxg3. That has got to be strong Ive seen this opening just too many times. |
|
| Feb-14-03 | | drukenknight: the "similar games" function has 7 wins for black and 1 for white in the data base. All of them play 6...Nc6 |
|
| Feb-14-03 | | ughaibu: A positive score of 7-2 for black suggests that black gets a considerable advantage from the opening. That Spassky was able to win so effeciently from such an opening against Portisch, one of the top grandmasters, shows just how much stronger than his contemporaries he really was. |
|
| Jan-04-05 | | beenthere240: what about 26...Re8, threatening to draw? After f5 the roof begins to fall in on his head with the passed pawn and the open lines for white's bishops. |
|
| Sep-10-06 | | Tariqov: <drunken> Are you sure <Here the g3 move just blows up whites pawns w/o any compensation in the way of a piece.> ? Without compensation? White is opening lines after 0-0 etc(if black plays fxg3!?) before Black gets to mobilize.
if this is theory, and it is refuted i guess it was a bad move but i think your statement is clearly wrong.Unless you can prove it. Tariqov :)
|
|
| Apr-18-07 | | Brown: Spassky plays "unclear" positions better than anyone perhaps ever. But when others "clarified" things, things sometimes didn't go his way. Players like Karpov and Fischer are prime examples of these players. Only an arch-tactician with positional savvy like Kasparov could take on Karpov in his prime. |
|
| May-02-07 | | M.D. Wilson: I agree. But Spassky also had a very strong positional backbone. Many of his exchanges left him with winning endgames. Still, he is probably a rung below Karpov and Fischer in terms of being a master strategist or cold-blooded technician; the difference isn't enormous, though. I certainly think Spassky's imagination was greater than his successors. |
|
| May-02-07 | | Billy Ray Valentine: This game is not easy for me to grasp quickly--and I have studied the King's Gambit extensively. I'd be very curious to see computer evaluation of this game. Given what the game looks like early on, I'd never guess that White would pull out the victory... Fascinating! |
|
| Jan-18-09 | | Xeroxx: Three major mistakes by Portisch
26...f5
38...Ng8
and
44...b6
|
|
Mar-25-09
 | | al wazir: Black won an exchange on move 15 and lost 40 moves later. Go figure. |
|
| Mar-25-09 | | UnsoundHero: I don't think white has enough for the exchange. But 19...Nd8 is too passive. I like 19...h5, trying to make use out of the passed pawn. |
|
Mar-25-09
 | | FSR: "A Thrust to the King's Gambit" is obviously a play on Fischer's famous article "A Bust to the King's Gambit" (American Chess Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer 1961, p. 3). Fischer advocated 3...d6! in that article, stating unequivocally, "In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force." Id. at 4. (He later played the King's Gambit himself in three tournament games, winning all of them!) The first five moves of this game follow Fischer's analysis. 6.g3 is not mentioned by Fischer. According to Korchnoi and Zak, it had been played in Herter-Kapic, Zagreb 1955, which ended quickly with 6....g4 7.Nh4 f3 8.Bf4! Nd7 9.Qd3 Qf6 10.Nc3 c6 11.0-0-0 Nb6 12.e5 dxe5 13.dx5 Qe7 14.Bxf7+ 1-0. Korchnoi and Zak, The King's Gambit, p. 21. Korchnoi and Zak say Portisch's 6...Nc6! is an improvement. They give a question mark to Spassky's 7.gxf4? and say that he should instead have transposed to the main line of the Hanstein Gambit with 7.0-0 Bg7 8.c3. In the game continuation K & Z say that 13...Qg3! (Keres) was "even stronger" than Portisch's 13...Qxh2+ winning the exchange. Interesting how Spassky played the King's Gambit against both Fischer and Portisch, got objectively lost positions where he was down material (a pawn against Fischer, an exchange against Portisch), yet won both games anyway. He also crushed Seirawan (who defended with the odd 3...Ne7) with the King's Gambit many years later. |
|
Mar-25-09
| | FSR: Spassky really was a giant of the King's Gambit. He played it against the world's strongest players (Fischer, Portisch, Bronstein, Korchnoi, Najdorf, etc.), but apart from a simul game against Gary Lane, he never lost with it (+18 =13 -0) - an amazing record. See http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
| Mar-25-09 | | KingV93: This is an interesting game. I love the kings gambit and play it frequently but must admit I aim for a tactical blitzkrieg using the Bxf7 motif as much as possible. If the game goes more than 30 or so moves I've probably lost. Lots of players seem unprepared to face it and it can lead to some smashing wins. |
|
| Mar-25-09 | | kevin86: One of Spassky's better games. |
|
Mar-25-09
 | | Phony Benoni: It's important to realize that the idea behind the King's Gambit is not to sacrifice a piece or two. Instead, it's positional: securing a strong pawn center and free, quick development for the pieces. These are conditions that are favorable for heavy sacrifices, and the flashy games that result are more likely to be published, remembered and treasured. But deep down the King's Gambit and the Queen's Gambit are played for the same strategical reasons. There are huge tactical differences, of course. The move f4 exposes White's king, so the King's Gambit is more likely to be double-edged. And the lines that open up generally zero in on the kings. Black's counters also vary. In the King's Gambit, ...d5 is normal, but in the Queen's Black can rarely play ...e5 early. On the other hand, Black's ...c5 counter in the Queen's would be ...f5 in the King's, and obviously quite risky. Spassky's play in this game is essentially positional. He loses/gives up/sacrifices/whatevers the exchange, but gets a huge pawn center behind which he can manuever peacefully. Black's knight in particular has a terrible time trying to find something to do. Eventually, Portisch feels he must break up the pawn center, even at the cost of concessions elsewhere. Doesn't look much like a King's Gambit at the end with all those White pawns on the f-file! |
|
Mar-25-09
 | | Gypsy: <deep down the King's Gambit and the Queen's Gambit are played for the same strategical reasons.> Indeed, <1.e4 e4 2.f4...> was the favorite switch-up of a king of positional play, <Akiba Rubinstein> himself; and he played it much like a mirror of QG. Repertoire Explorer: Akiba Rubinstein (white) |
|
Mar-25-09
 | | Jimfromprovidence: 44...b6 looks like the losing move. Is there a win if 44..Rf7 for black?
click for larger view |
|
| Mar-25-09 | | WhiteRook48: so Spassky is the king? |
|
| Mar-25-09 | | Samagonka: White really put up a big fight to win this game. |
|
| Mar-25-09 | | chillowack: I am surprised to find that several kibitzers here seem to believe Spassky deliberately sacrificed the exchange, and was equal or better in the ensuing position. My feeling was that Portisch outplayed Spassky in the opening, found a clever combination (13...Qh2+!!)which won the exchange by force, and gained the advantage. Spassky, being brilliant and at the height of his powers, then gradually fought his way back to win the game, in the true style of a champion. That was my take on this game, but of course it's all very complex. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 12.Rxh2
