< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Apr-24-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: He did. He explains in the real My 60 Memorable Games that it was a breach of etiquette. Nevertheless, the final position is drawn.|
|May-25-09|| ||tibone: what happens if white plays the counter-desperado 13. Nc6 ?|
|Jul-15-09|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: there is (yet another!) fascinating Karsten Muller article on chesscafe. com today
|Jul-15-09|| ||CharlesSullivan: <SimonWebbsTiger> wrote: <there is (yet another!) fascinating Karsten Muller article on chesscafe. com today>|
You might enjoy replaying on your computer the game and analysis at my website:
Karsten was kind enough to make this his Endgame Corner #100.
|Jul-15-09|| ||theagenbiteofinwit: Wow, young Petrosian looks like old Tal.|
|Jul-15-09|| ||CharlesSullivan: <IMlday> wrote on 19 Feb 2009: <In his 2007 notes Fischer takes the ? away from 57.Rh1 claiming 57.Rh7 c5! 58.Rd7+ Ke6 59.Rd1 Rb8 60.f5+! Kf6! (improving on 60..Ke5 in M60MG)...is a draw>. |
Very interesting! This analysis is correct--the position is a draw. I wonder if it was found by Fischer???
My analysis (which was used by Karsten Mueller) was sent to Hanon Russell at ChessCafe.com on 23 December 2008, so I did not see IM Day's posting of 19 Feb 2009, otherwise I would certainly have noted IM Day's comment about "Fischer's" analysis.
|Jul-15-09|| ||IMlday: Most interesting indeed.
In the race variation the improvement 60..Kb4 seems to gain a key tempo in having 63..c4 available as a forward move. Then 64..Rd8! is a charming study-like move to gain the final critical tempo.
Less clear is the line: 57.Rh7 c6 58.Rd7+ Kc5 59.Rd1 c3 60.f5 Rd8 (! you punctuate) since after 61.Rc1 Kd4 62.Kf4 Kd3 63.f6 Kd2 64.Ra1 Ra8 (again punctuated !, but doesn't it fail to 64.Rxa8 winning?).
|Jul-15-09|| ||CharlesSullivan: <IMlday> correctly noted: <Less clear is the line: 57.Rh7 c6 58.Rd7+ Kc5 59.Rd1 c3 60.f5 Rd8 (! you punctuate) since after 61.Rc1 Kd4 62.Kf4 Kd3 63.f6 Kd2 64.Ra1 Ra8 (again punctuated !, but doesn't it fail to 64.Rxa8 winning?).>|
My mistake! I transcribed the variation incorrectly. I plan to post a corrected variation soon.
My thanks to IM Lawrence Day for catching this. It's nice to know that there is at least one reader who looks at the (ugly) details!
|Jul-16-09|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: Hello Charles
I wonder if Dvoretsky has looked through your amazing work? It wouldn't surprise me if he has got it earmarked for one of his training sessions. If it proves one thing, those simple positions are anything but!
|Jul-16-09|| ||CharlesSullivan: Thanks to <IMlday>, I've posted a correction on my website to the error he noted. As he gave it, the line begins 57.Rh7 c6 58.Rd7+ Kc5 59.Rd1 c3 60.f5 Rd8 61.Rc1 Kd4 62.Kf4 Kd3 63.f6 Kd2 64.Ra1 <and now 64...c2 65.g5 must be inserted and then the rest is right:> 65...Ra8! 66.Rh1 Re8! 67.f7 Re1!=|
Thanks to <SimonWebbsTiger>, and yes, those simple positions are difficult -- just think how much we don't know about the complicated ones!
|Jul-20-09|| ||CharlesSullivan: By the way, Karsten Müller has found a refutation for White in the same line that IM Day questioned on July 15th: 57.Rh7 c6 58.Rd7+ Kc5 59.Rd1 c3 60.f5 Rd8 (so far, the 60...Kb4! variation has not been refuted) 61.Rc1 Kd4, etc. He probably will be posting the new variation in his ChessCafe column in mid-August.|
|Aug-13-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 8 d4 looks like it's wasting time|
|Aug-22-09|| ||nescio: <WhiteRook48: 8 d4 looks like it's wasting time> |
It appears as if Petrosian loses a tempo, but I think he may have counted on winning a tempo instead as Nh5 is out of play. In Petrosian vs Vasiukov, 1956 he had tried the slow 8.Rb1, but was squeezed. Look at the Fischer quote under that game.
|Mar-16-10|| ||redwaz: Not good enough to comment on the game itself. The only comment I will make is "look at that clock, man"!!(in the image that is)|
|Jul-25-10|| ||tentsewang: A boy of such passion and determination during that time with a draw against the best in the would was certainly one of Fischer's most memorable games. Believe in good moves my friend !!|
|Jul-13-11|| ||joelsontang: Perhaps 23.b4 should add more pressure and cramp on Black disallowing 23...a5. Then Petrosian could have attempted to lock the Q-side and focus on the K-side particularly the weak black f-pawn. Could Petrosian pursueing this plan have forced a win?|
|Jul-13-11|| ||rannewman: When you point out and ask about an idea which was pointed out at bobby's book, it looks like you are just trying to show-off with some suprior insight that you don't acutally posses. If you actually havn't read the book tho, it's realy good book :)|
|Feb-07-12|| ||MrMacisu: can you see that watch? too bigggg|
|Aug-15-12|| ||Cemoblanca: Here is the photo solution:
"Then-15-year-old chess star Bobby Fischer, left, and Russian grand master Tigran Petrosian play a PRACTICE game at Moscow's Central Chess Club, June 30, 1958."
|Aug-15-12|| ||TheFocus: Actually, this is a blitz game, not a practice game. The occasion was Bobby's trip to Moscow as a guest of the Soviet Union.|
Tigran was called in to play against Bobby as Bobby was scoring quite well against the Soviet masters, showing them up at blitz chess, as it were. Bobby was scoring over 60% in the games.
Petrosian was one of the best blitz players in the Soviet Union.
|Aug-15-12|| ||Petrosianic: Isn't blitz a kind of practice?|
|Aug-15-12|| ||TheFocus: Kinda. Sorta. Maybe.
But PRACTICE to me infers an informal game, not blitz.
Depends on how you define "practice."
|Aug-29-12|| ||TheFocus: This is game 3 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>.|
|Dec-28-13|| ||offramp: The guy on the left is a Portorozian.|
|Apr-19-15|| ||Howard: Fischer claimed that 25.Bh5 would have "tied (him) up completely."|
Would that have been a forced win ?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·