|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-31-03 | | fred lennox: 8 g3 is a solid move, though Be3 looks better after...Qb6, now the QB is in en prise and black can equalilze. Also, white can't 0-0-0. 14 b3 so as to Bac targeting the move Rf8. 15...c4 makes white's QB passive. I'm sure Fisher didn't relish giving up his good bishop but it was the only way to free the QB. 18...cxd4 exposing the king to an open file like this is poor taking away winning not advantage but chances. It is fine though for a draw. |
|
| Dec-13-05 | | aw1988: <fred lennox> <though Be3 looks better after...Qb6> ??, Qxb2! |
|
| Jan-11-06 | | aw1988: Ah, my apologies, b7 is also snapped off... |
|
| Mar-26-10 | | Nyctalop: Because of this system, 3. Nd2 is the more exact move. |
|
| Jan-04-11 | | Everett: Easy equality for Petrosian here. Surprised Fischer fell for this line. |
|
| Jan-04-11 | | Petrosianic: What is it you think he "fell for"? |
|
| Jan-06-11 | | Everett: <Petrosianic> The line beginning with 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.h3 Bxf3 makes it very hard for white to create any play. Black has the better minors and a super solid set-up. |
|
| Jan-07-11 | | AnalyzeThis: Fischer would never admit this, but it's entirely possible that he was happy to make a draw and guarantee himself a mini-match victory over Petrosian. I think he was wise not to try too hard in this instance. It's naive to think that Fischer didn't know about, and play over, numerous 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. h3 games prior to this occasion as part of his regular study habits. |
|
| Jan-07-11 | | Everett: <AnalyzeThis> Good points, and like I said, I was surprised by it, either "falling into it" or choosing it. The idea of Fischer being happy to make a draw with white in any circumstance, though certainly not impossible, is strange. It's also not <naive> that Fischer didn't know the ins and outs of every single line out there. Finally, didn't the way he played his main lines start showing holes by the end of the Spassky match, according to some top players? |
|
| Jan-07-11 | | unferth: how exactly are black's minor's better? both dark-squared bishops are bad; both light-squared bishops get exchanged for knights early on. black's Q-side knight goes to d7 b8 c6 h5, white's to c3 d2 c1 d3 b4 ... hard for me to see any meaningful superiority there either way. not trying to be argumentative; if there's something I'm missing, I'd like to hear it. |
|
Jan-07-11
 | | kingfu: We know RJF loved the bishops. Here, the White King Bishop is blocked by the black pawns, so Bobby had to trade it for the Knight. Maybe The Soviets were testing Bobby for weakness. Maybe Petrosian did not want to lose to the kid. Maybe Fischer did not want to lose to the recently ex World Champion. There are lots of possible motivations here!
Sometimes Chess is more than just a game. |
|
| Jan-07-11 | | Everett: <unferth>
Black's Nf5 and white's Bd3 are roughly equivalent in this position <probably the best minors on the board>, and the exchange is roughly equal. Otherwise, I think black's DSB is slightly better, with more targets and harmony with its own pawns. As far as the remaining pair of knights, they're roughly even. This was all set up by the exchange on f3, when black exchanged a bad piece (the LSB) for white's better N, especially when considering the pawn-structure. In all, black has the better minors and white has the more space, IMHO. |
|
| Jan-07-11 | | Everett: The best white can do is exchange things down the c-file. In short, no dynamic play. |
|
| Jan-07-11 | | unferth: <Everett> thanks--I have a hard time seeing a practical edge for black's dark-squared bishop here, but fair enough. |
|
| Jun-15-11 | | parisattack: I am surprised the Gurgenidze Robatsch does not get more attention. It is quite intricate, solid and has many different plans for both sides. It was my 'go to' defense. That said, I could not get the better players to play both e5 and f4 very often and black can only temporize one or two move at most waiting for the former... |
|
Jul-04-13
| | Caissalove: 29.Nxd5 for white seems winning to me. Somebody please tell me what I have missed? |
|
Jul-04-13
 | | beatgiant: <Caissalove>
Maybe <16...exf5> is a misprint for <16...gxf5>. Can anyone confirm? |
|
Jul-04-13
 | | tamar: 16...gxf5 is the move on Fritz 13 database. |
|
Jul-04-13
| | Caissalove: Thank you for that. 16....gxf5 must have been played by the look of it. |
|
| Aug-28-13 | | parisattack: Petrosian wrote that 19. ...Bf8 reactivating the B instead of 19. ...Nb8 gives Black good chances. |
|
Sep-22-17
 | | Stonehenge: Photo:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rrox_uj2t... |
|
| Sep-22-17 | | Retireborn: <Stonehenge> Very nice photo, with Larsen, Portisch, and Taimanov(? on the left) looking on. Presumably the white-haired guy on the right is Najdorf, and the pair at the back are Matulovic and Botvinnik, while the head right at the front looks like it might be Korchnoi. So many heroes in such a small space! |
|
Sep-22-17
 | | perfidious: <Retireborn: <Stonehenge> Very nice photo, with Larsen, Portisch, and Taimanov(? on the left) looking on. Presumably the white-haired guy on the right is Najdorf, and the pair at the back are Matulovic and Botvinnik, while the head right at the front looks like it might be Korchnoi....> Taimanov is indeed at the far left, while your supposition is correct: Korchnoi is pondering while his opponent Portisch is away from the board. |
|
| Sep-22-17 | | Retireborn: <perfidious> Thanks. Now I'm looking more closely, I can see numbers 8 and 9 attached to the tables at the back, which makes it clear who is playing there. Bit of a pity that Tal wasn't sitting down! It does seem they played this match in quite a cramped space. |
|
| Sep-22-17 | | diceman: Oh the irony!
Taimanov and Larsen pre 6-0, 6-0.
When you consider Fischer is playing Petrosian, you have Fischer's candidates casualties all in a group photo. Shame Spassky wasn't in the photo. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
