|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-10-05 | | RookFile: Spassky had a chance here: 18. d5!!
18.... exd5 19. exd5 bxc3 20. Rxb6 Nd8
21. Bc4, with exploits Fischer's missing 16.... Rxa1, according to Gligoric. It doesn't win, but it
give White a try for advantage.
|
|
| Aug-10-05 | | RookFile: And by the way, this was the 9th
game of the match. |
|
| May-18-07 | | Inf: why not 14.axb5? if black takes then pawn he will lose a rook, and if he retreats the K, then white has a passed pawn. what am i missing here? |
|
| May-18-07 | | Marmot PFL: <what am i missing here?> 14...Nxd4, and this center pawn is more important than the pawn on b5. |
|
| May-18-07 | | Inf: <marmot> but Spassky lost the pawn anyways... i agree with you that the center pawn is more important, but if thats the case i would have played 16.Rxa8 Bxa8 17.Bxb5 not giving black a chance to take the center pawn... Spassky was not same as the last 2 WC with "tiger" Petrosian... what a shame. i hate when things like this happen, makes me forget about everything, study chess non-stop, become a super GM, then a WC, and then come back here and post in <cg.com> to talk it up with you guys... |
|
| Feb-29-08 | | Knight13: <16.Rxa8 Bxa8 17.Bxb5> There's gotta be something wrong with that. Or else Spassky wouldn't have just castled. |
|
| May-22-08 | | Marmot PFL: <<16.Rxa8 Bxa8 17.Bxb5> There's gotta be something wrong with that. Or else Spassky wouldn't have just castled.> Can't black just play 16...Qxa8 17.Bxb5 Na7 with attack on Bb5 and Pe4? Also if white plays 16.Bxb5 black had 16...Rxa1+ 17.Qxa1 Qb6 18.Bxc6 Bxc6 19.Nd2 Ra8 20.Qc3 Qa6 and white is in trouble. |
|
| May-22-08 | | Marmot PFL: <Spassky had a chance here: 18. d5!! 18.... exd5 19. exd5 bxc3 20. Rxb6 Nd8
21. Bc4, with exploits Fischer's missing 16.... Rxa1, according to Gligoric. It doesn't win, but it give White a try for advantage. > 16...Qb6 was inaccurate, but black could also play 16...Rc8 or b4 with a good position. Even in Gligorich's line white's edge is very slight after 21...Ra5. |
|
| May-23-08 | | Peter Nemenyi: <ughaibu: Yes, Tal had a plus score against Fischer, so did Geller.> We should stipulate that these weren't equivalent achievements. Tal never defeated Fischer after Bobby was sixteen. Geller beat him five times when RJF was nineteen to twenty-four--a much greater feat even if that wasn't Fischer's absolute prime. |
|
| May-23-08 | | Calli: <Spassky had a chance here: 18. d5!!
18.... exd5 19. exd5 bxc3 20. Rxb6 Nd8 21. Bc4, ....according to Gligoric> There is no reason Black can't play 20...Na5 in that line instead of the passive d8. Looks completely equal at that point. |
|
| May-23-08 | | KingG: <tud> <9...b5 was a novelty> Yes, and 10.Bd3 was a bit inaccurate. Better was 10.Be2! as in Yusupov vs Ribli, 1985. |
|
| May-04-09 | | WhiteRook48: well, Fischer accused Geller, Petrosian, and Keres of prearranging easy draws against one other once |
|
| Jun-24-12 | | hottyboy90: This game didn't do it for me,disappointing. |
|
| Jun-24-12 | | Petrosianic: <hottyboy90>: <This game didn't do it for me,disappointing.> I'm sure that makes it disappointing to the players, too. |
|
| Jun-24-12 | | King Death: < Peter Nemenyi: <ughaibu: Yes, Tal had a plus score against Fischer, so did Geller.>
We should stipulate that these weren't equivalent achievements. Tal never defeated Fischer after Bobby was sixteen. Geller beat him five times when RJF was nineteen to twenty-four--a much greater feat even if that wasn't Fischer's absolute prime.> In my opinion what Geller did rates higher too, it was over a period of time instead of a single event where a player was just running everybody over. That can create its own momentum. At least with CG's new feature that divides the games between classical and other types we don't have to put up with things like "Botvinnik was +2-1=5 against Capablanca" anymore when everybody knows that their first game was played in a simul. |
|
| Jun-24-12 | | Petrosianic: Even worse. Not everybody did know that. |
|
| Jun-29-12 | | hottyboy90: I wasn't aware of that feature.Where do I find it? |
|
| Sep-27-16 | | edubueno: 9 a3! or 9 Tb1! |
|
| Oct-16-16 | | ZonszeinP: Indeed, I like 9-Rb1 |
|
| Aug-01-21 | | Albion 1959: The shortest game of match in terms of time spent on the board - just over three hours. The game never really came to life. Fischer's novelty on move 9, appeared to draw the sting from any hope of a Spassky attack. Though he did miss a chance on move 18 by playing Qd2? It was a surprise that he played this, maybe he lacked the confidence to try d5!?
From the 23rd move, the position was always going to be a draw. Fischer must have been pleased to get an easy draw with the black pieces against the world champion ! |
|
| Jun-20-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: The times for this game from a website called crackteam.org: <<Game 9, August 1st, 1972 Spassky Fischer
White Black
(ar) (0:10)
1. d4 (0:00) Nf6 (0:12)
(When Fischer appeared, Spassky had already left and did not come back until 4 minutes after Fischer's move.)
(ar) (0:04)
2. c4 (0:04) e6 (0:13)
3. Nf3 (0:05) d5 (0:14)
4. Nc3 (0:06) c5 (0:22)
5. cxd5 (0:07) Nxd5 (0:22)
6. e4 Nxc3
7. bxc3 cxd4
8. cxd4 (0:08) Nc6 (0:23)
9. Bc4 (0:16) b5 (0:43)
10. Bd3 (0:19) Bb4+ (0:46)
11. Bd2 (0:19) Bxd2+ (0:49)
12. Qxd2 (0:19) a6 (0:51)
13. a4 (0:41) 0-0 (0:55)
14. Qc3 (0:46) Bb7 (0:56)
15. axb5 (0:53) axb5 (0:56)
16. 0-0 (0:59) Qb6 (0:58)
17. Rab1 (1:08) b4 (1:03)
18. Qd2 (1:26) Nxd4 (1:14)
19. Nxd4 (1:27) Qxd4 (1:15)
20. Rxb4 (1:27) Qd7 (1:20)
21. Qe3 (1:28) Rfd8 (1:23)
22. Rfb1 (1:31) Qxd3 (1:27)
23. Qxd3 (1:31) Rxd3 (1:27)
24. Rxb7 (1:31) g5 (1:30)
25. Rb8+ Rxb8
26. Rxb8+ Kg7
27. f3 (1:37) Rd2 (1:32)
28. h4 (1:38) h6 (1:41)
29. hxg5 hxg5
½-½
(ar) indicates the arrival of the player at the board.> > |
|
| Jul-08-22 | | Touchdown: 13.d5 should be an interesting alternative.
If... exd5 14.exd5 Na5 (Qxd5 15.0-0) 15.0-0 with good chances.
If 13...Na5 ,14.Qb4.
This is a computer line. |
|
Jul-05-24
 | | Chessmaletaja: SOME NOTES ON THE POSITION AFTER 8 cxd4
click for larger viewFischer was an expert on Gruenfeld's Defence but did not use it against Spassky during the 1972 match. However, the pawn structure of Semi-Tarrasch's present position is similar, except that Black has played e6 instead of g6. It is still a hypermodern opening, with White having the pawn centre d4 and e4 and Black having the pawn majority on the queenside. Spassky and his coaches definitely knew the present position very well. Spassky's second Krogius had recently, in 1971, played 8...♘c6 9 ♗c4 ♗b4+ with black pieces against Platonov: I Platonov vs Krogius, 1971 In a 1969 WC match against Petrosian, Spassky had, with White pieces, won an impressive game after 8...♗b4+: Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969 After 8...♘c6 9 ♗c4, Fischer's move 9...b5! was a strong novelty. Chess engines say this move was playable but not better than the usual 9...♗b4+. After 10 ♗d3?! ♗b4+ 11 ♗d2 Fischer made an inexact move 11...♗xd2?!. This is what the engines are saying. The point seems to be that after 12 ♕xd2, White becomes active too early along the d-line. However, after 12...a6 in the game, Spassky avoided the sharp continuation 13 d5!. The point of that move seems to be that after 13...exd5 14 exd5 ♕xd5 15 0-0! Black still cannot castle. I am trying to say that the present draw only looks simple and tedious. This variation is highly tactical, dynamic, and sharp. Evaluating the resulting positions is not easy without experience. |
|
Jul-05-24
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi Chessmaletaja,
<I am trying to say that the present draw only looks simple and tedious.> Agreed! Like all what is called tepid games there are a lot of unplayed melodies just below the surface. This game was played after Spassky asked for a two day postponement so perhaps he was still not up for it or having a crisis of confidence and shied away from complications. (speculation but based on the various reports of the match from people who were there.) Regarding 13.d5 yes that would have sparked things up and Spassky probably thought about it. He spent 22 minutes before playing 13.a4 so he was thinking about something and 13.d5 is a strong candidate. The TN 9...b5 from Fischer came after 20 minutes thought. OTB inspiration or delayed to say 'let's try this - It is not home analyse - honest!" It did not appear to phase Spassky he spent 3 minutes on the reply though possibly saw it coming and had a reply when wondering why Fischer was taking so long. Fischer arrived 12 minutes late but by move 17 he had used less time Spassky. |
|
| Apr-12-25 | | Polemarque: 3 books and 2 other database said Fischer play the 29 th ply: 29... hxg5 before draw agreed |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
