chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing


register now - it's free!
Donald Byrne vs Robert James Fischer
"The Game of the Century" (game of the day Mar-09-13)
Third Rosenwald Trophy (1956)  ·  Gruenfeld Defense: Three Knights Variation. Hungarian Attack (D92)  ·  0-1
To move:
Last move:

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 196 times; par: 76 [what's this?]

Annotations by Robert Wade.      [1 more game annotated by Wade]

explore this opening
find similar games 6 more D Byrne/Fischer games
sac: 17...Be6 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You should register a free account to activate some of Chessgames.com's coolest and most powerful features.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with the default chess viewer, please see the Pgn4web Quickstart Guide.

Donald Byrne vs Robert James Fischer (1956)
Cover of Chess Review, December 1956.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 53 OF 53 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Oct-24-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <todic: I can't believe Bobby lost the queen in only 18 moves.>

I lost my Queen against Little Chess Partner in 15 moves once. I am proud to be 3 moves faster than Fischer.

Oct-24-14  RookFile: Queen for a king in only 7 moves:

De Legal vs Saint Brie, 1750

Nov-17-14  sharpnova: This game is unimpressive.

11. Bg5 is a move that even a club level player would never play.

I guess chess has come a long way. But should we pretend that garbage from the past is a gem just because of its age?

I guarantee you every single game played between super GM's in the last 20 years has far more strength and beauty than this game.

And don't get me started on Anderssen's Immortal or Morphy's Opera House. These games were nothing but blunders by both sides, with the losing side's blunders being more consistent.

Nov-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  jnpope: 2/10 on the trolling (points deducted for needlessly invoking Anderssen and Morphy).
Nov-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <jnpope> Anderssen and Morphy woulda bin jes 2100 players today anyway--probly not even as good as me, and Ah aint played since Ah throwed out mah back plowing the nawth forty one day.
Nov-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  maxi: You are funny, <sharpnova>.
Nov-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  maxi: Yes, <RookFile>, but is it legal to give up your Queen, just like that?
Nov-17-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  maxi: And as far as I am concerned it is kind of cheesy to accept all the pieces that are offered to you.
Dec-02-14  yurikvelo: http://pastebin.com/SsuZDqhu

this game multiPV

Dec-02-14  RookFile: <This game is unimpressive.
11. Bg5 is a move that even a club level player would never play.>

Blah blah. It's black to move in this position:


click for larger view

Most of us here would have to admit that we would not play ....Na4 in this position for black. I want to start with this assumption.

The problem is that we need to play some move with black. Assuming we don't see ....Na4, what would we do?

A) ...Nfd7, a typical Gruenfeld move, is out due to pressure on e7. (By amazing coincidence, I think this is what Byrne was thinking).

B) ....Bxf3 cedes the two bishops and strengthens white's center.

C) ...Qd7, to get off the pressure from the g5 bishop, allows Ne5 at some point.

D) ....Nbd7 is laughable because then black would have wasted a tempo with this knight.

I probably would have selected ....Bxf3 and followed up with ....Qd7 and ....e6, trying to put the pawns on white squares to give black a measure of white square control after having ceded the two bishops. Then, somewhere around move 40, it would be 1-0 for Byrne, after a nice positional grind.

Fischer knew it was time for black to go "all in" here.

Dec-13-14  nowo: <Pawnny><todicav23> It doesn't matter what black plays at moves 35 and 36; the evaluation is around -27 and the game is completely lost for black.
Dec-13-14  nowo: <Rookpawn><Petrosianic> Sacrifice - the act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone.

Is this any less a sacrifice than Petrosian's queen sac, for example?: Petrosian vs Pachman, 1961

Dec-13-14  nowo: <Rookfile> <Sharpnova> I agree with Rookfile. Easy for us to play "Monday morning quarterback" and second guess other's moves. However, we seem to forget things like pressure, nerves, stress, fatigue, etc. Playing OTB is completely different than analyzing and criticizing while sitting at our computers. Byrne may have simply been over-confident and thought the kid would crack under the pressure he was applying. He made some mistakes and Bobby made him pay - that's part of chess.
Dec-26-14  reti: Everyone should remember that Donald Byrne was an International master playing a 13 year old kid named Bobby Fisher.
Dec-26-14  Petrosianic: Actually, he wasn't. Byrne got the IM title in 1962.

But here's something that does get forgotten. This is one of only two Fischer wins in the tournament, against 4 losses. Here's his other win, which has gotten far less fanfare.

Fischer vs Seidman, 1956

Dec-26-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  andrewjsacks: Wow! Almost the Game of the Decade--if you ignore several by Tal.
Dec-26-14  Petrosianic: <nowo>: <Sacrifice - the act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to help someone.

Is this any less a sacrifice than Petrosian's queen sac, for example?>

It's a niggling distinction to be sure, but put it this way. Would you call it a sacrifice if you gave up a Rook for 3 minor pieces? Probably not, because the 3 minors are worth more than the rook. Giving up a Queen for a Bishop is generally considered a sacrifice, yes. Because you give up <more> material than you get. (Although since a King is worth infinite material, you could argue the opposite side of that question too).

In this game, Fischer gives up Queen for Rook, Two Minors and a Pawn (and an attack). Is that a sacrifice? Well, on the one hand you could argue no, because he got more material than he gave up. On the other hand you could argue yes because he gave up a queen, and didn't get his opponent's queen (and people see the queen as being a special case). Even with my Rook for 3 minors example, some might consider it a sac just because no single piece you got was worth as much as that rook.

Third question: If a player gives up Queen for two Rooks (and no particular attack), is that a sacrifice? Opinion would probably be pretty heavily divided on that. If we go strictly by the point system in those beginner books, a queen is worth 9 points, and the two rooks worth 10. So, not a sacrifice by that measure. And I think most of us, in a neutral position (where we're not in danger of being mated) would make that trade and feel we were coming out ahead, not sacrificing.

Feb-25-15  amurph64: @ todicav23 Bobby didn't "lose" his Queen. He chose to sacrifice it to set up a winning attack.
Feb-25-15  Petrosianic: <He chose to sacrifice it to set up a winning attack.>

Again, it's debatable if it's a sacrifice <at all>, if you get more than a Queen's worth of material in exchange for it. If I give up a Knight, that's not a sacrifice if I win a Rook at the same time.

Feb-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Marmot PFL: <Again, it's debatable if it's a sacrifice <at all>, if you get more than a Queen's worth of material in exchange for it. >

It's a sacrifice when played, even if the result is to win material. Almost all combinations (except forced mates) fall into that category.

Feb-25-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: As Peter Griffiths wrote on one of John Nunn's games, Fischer's brilliant idea was a matter of technique: a transaction.
Mar-12-15  1 2 3 4: <sharpnova: with the losing side's blunders being more consistent.> this sentence confirmed you're a troll.
Mar-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Marmot PFL> It's a sacrifice when played, even if the result is to win material.>

I disagree. If you wind up with material worth more than the material you gave up, it is not a sacrifice. But it can be debated. For example, were you getting more material than you sacrificed a forced continuation or was it the result of a blunder by your opponent? In the first case I would definitely say that it was not a sacrifice while in the second case I would tend to say that it was a sacrifice since the recovery of material was not forced. I would also say that it was a sacrifice even if the material recovery was forced, if you did not see the continuation all the way to its conclusion. Because, at the time you made the sacrifice, you were not sure that you would get the material back, even if it later turned out that you did.

Mar-18-15  ChessValley: AyerKupp: Interesting way of looking at a sacrifice. The way you describe it implies that a sacrifice always converts to a type of advantage other than a material one, ranging from a positional advantage to a checkmate position.

Would you call a sacrifice which ends up in a material advantage an "investment"?

Mar-18-15  Petrosianic: No, I'd call it a win of material.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 53)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 53 OF 53 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Times Chess Twitter Feed
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
Bidibulle's favorite games
by Bidibulle
glfelt's favorite games
by glfelt
gruenfeld/game of the century 20th
from benjobench's fischer games by benjobench
fischer favorites
by jgabay
Cheetah's favorite games
by Cheetah
Game of the Century
from Games for Study by Tullius
FischerFan124's favorite games
by FischerFan124
gibbonsm's favorite games
by gibbonsm
La partida del siglo
from harevalo's favorite games by harevalo
Queen sacrifices- 2
by obrit
nandhamnk's favorite games
by nandhamnk
Dillinger's favorite games
by Dillinger
Game of the Century
from bik0z's favorite games by bik0z
GAMES OF THE DAY
by gambitfan
fisher
from Masakrista's favorite games by Masakrista
ajmnh95's favorite games
by ajmnh95
The Immortal Game of the Century; Lesson: Windmill Tactic
from Chess by redorc19
"The Game of the Century"
from goodevans' favorite games by goodevans
An early Fischer Classic! What a guy!
from Cornetman's favorite games by Cornetman
64 Immortal games
by Six66timesGenius
plus 693 more collections (not shown)


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies