|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-28-11 | | Lobster: The variation was known, but not by Reshevsky! I knew the line, and as a spectator at the match, couldn't believe my eyes when Sammy fell into the trap. |
 |
| Jul-16-11 | | joelsontang: Reshevsky should have played 9...Nxb3! and 10.exf6 10...Nxa1 11.fxg7 11...Nxc2 check 12.Qxc2 12...Kxg7 and Black has 2 pawns and a Rook for 2 minor pieces - a fair deal - in this case Black has no weaknesses and his pawn structure is solid. Black will have better winning chances, you agree? |
|
Jul-17-11
 | | andrewjsacks: Well, who could disagree with the "should have played" part, anyway? |
|
| Sep-12-11 | | spotkicker: 8...Na5 is the first mistake. After 9.e5 black could play 9...Nxb3 10.exf6 Nxa1 11.fxg7 Nxc2 12.Nxc2 Kxg7 is the best way. However this position even is clearly better for white. Weak black squares, undeveloped pieces are the difficulties of black when the king's poisition is another weakness. After 9.e5 9...Ne8 is the losing mistake. 10.Bxf7 Kxf7 11.Ne6 Kxe6 is not also a solution. Because 12.Qd5 Kf5 13.g4 Kxg4 15.Rg1 Kh5 16.Qg2 If i do not remember wrongly this variation was played between two player Palac(white) and Ostojic(black) in 1980s. Of course 11...dxe6 is better than 11...Kxe6 but that is a lost position too. |
|
| Sep-12-11 | | Granny O Doul: This is the one famous game I sometimes am able to repeat. Somehow, Morphy vs. the Duke and the Count never quite gets there, and the nearest I came to Edward Lasker-Sir George Thomas, the guy went back in the corner with his king and allowed an immediate Ng6#. |
|
| Sep-18-11 | | M3ANDROS: @Paraconti: the game you refer to is this one: Ivanchuk vs Kasparov, 1994 Great game, especially 11. Bh6! was a killer by Ivanchuk! |
|
| Dec-26-11 | | invas0rX: fisheneitor |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | LIFE Master AJ: <<Jan-12-12 kasparvez: Life Master AJ, here are two for your collection:
Fischer vs Reshevsky, 1958
Saemisch vs Capablanca, 1929>>
Noted, added - & thanks. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Mudphudder: Ahhh...this is the game from the famous 'Fischer trap' of the sicilian. I was very surprised to find the trapped opponent is someone of Reshevsky's caliber! |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Riverbeast: <I was very surprised to find the trapped opponent is someone of Reshevsky's caliber> Reshevsky had a 'real job', and was never known as a player who stayed on top of all the latest theory This was yet another example of a kid knowing more current theory than the old guy :-) |
|
Jan-13-12
 | | HeMateMe: Reshevsky a stubborn man, playing on long after he was beat. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Penguincw: What would happen after 9...Nxb3?
click for larger view |
|
Jan-13-12
 | | Shams: <Penguincw> 9...Nxb3 10.exf6 Nxa1 10.fxg7 should be winning for White. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | unferth: <Shams: 9...Nxb3 10.exf6 Nxa1 10.fxg7 should be winning for White.> 10 ... Nxc2+ 11 Qxc2 Kxg7 and black has R+P for N+N ... better for white, certainly, especially given his lead in development--but clearly winning? for Fischer, perhaps. |
|
| Jan-13-12 | | Penguincw: Thanks for the clarification <Shams> and <unferth>. I was looking along those lines and wasn't sure if it was best or not. |
|
Jan-13-12
| | Shams: After <unferth>'s 11...Kxg7: 
click for larger viewI did say "should be winning" but I think <unferth> is right and I should knock it back to merely saying White is better. Actually, I'll just say "I much prefer White" and leave it to others to say how much better White is. If White had the other bishop it might be a different story, but Queen and unopposed DSB combined with the Black king's dark-square weaknesses looks promising. I can't imagine Black would voluntarily go in for this. |
|
Jan-14-12
| | Shams: Shredder 12: +1.24 12.Ndb5 d6 13.Qd2 Kh8 14.Nxa7 (White wants the b6 square) f6 15.0-0 Be6 17.Re1 Re8 etc. |
|
| Aug-22-12 | | csmath: Two geniuses. But unlike Fischer, Sammy Reshevsky had a life and did not study openings to the extent Bobby did. Else Reshevsky would have been the first US world champion because his abilities were truly outstanding and probably nothing less than Fischer's. |
|
| Aug-22-12 | | RookFile: I agree with your sentiments, csmatch. Reshevsky actually retired from the game for a while, before coming back. He had to work as an accountant to be able to support his family, and was not subsidized like his Russian opposition was. That handicap meant he didn't have time to study the openings like he might have. |
|
| Aug-30-12 | | Jaques: Plus there was Russian collusion against Reshevsky when he did play in the World Championship tournament in the late '40's. |
|
| Aug-30-12 | | ughaibu: Idiot, moron, imbecile, ignoramus, twit, et cetera. |
|
Mar-09-13
 | | mumra3patzer: Reshevesky had a poor memory according to Pal Benko.They would spend all day analysing opening theory only for poor Sam to forget it all by the days end! Comments recorded in "What it takes to become a chess master " by Andrew Soltis. |
|
| Mar-10-13 | | IndigoViolet: <Reshevesky had a poor memory according to Pal Benko> Sounds to me like more a case of information overload. Learning openings requires time and a structured approach. I'm sure that when it came to what one might term visualisation, Reshevsky's memory was as exceptional as all other top players. |
|
| Mar-10-13 | | RookFile: If you don't have a good memory, than you can't calculate the daylights out of a position like Reshevsky could. He was very strong at tactics. |
|
| Mar-10-13 | | IndigoViolet: Fred Waitzkin compared the visualisation skills of a top GM as akin to doing the entire NYT crossword in your head. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 10.Bxf7+
