|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Jan-19-08
 |
| Benzol: <Richard Taylor> did his homework too and won this way against Neil Cruden a few days ago in the New Zealand Major Open. |
 |
| Apr-03-08 |
| Whitehat1963: Is this also a nominee for "Best Game Ever by a 15-year-old"? |
|
Apr-03-08
 |
| keypusher: <Whitehat1963: Is this also a nominee for "Best Game Ever by a 15-year-old"?> I don't think so; Black is completely lost before the game gets out of book. I think Fischer himself played several games better than this when he was 15. |
|
Jun-07-08
 |
| Some call me Tim: In my humble opinion Fischer played many better games at 15. This one is just regurgitated Russian analysis. See Fischer vs Tal, 1958 where Fischer doubled rooks on the seventh against the (then) might Tal but ended up drawing by missing the best line. Still, very impressive. (After the game Tal reportedly told Keres "I don't know how I didn't get mated!"). Or his win against Larsen. Fischer vs Larsen, 1958
Both games are from the Portoroz Interzonal 1958. |
|
| Jun-08-08 |
| RookFile: I think you're right: Fischer himself didn't include this in My 60 Memorable Games. |
|
Jun-09-08
|
| Some call me Tim: That is another good point and brings to mind my longstanding curiosity of Fischer's thinking in choosing the games for that book. He chose as the first (earliest) game a good one against Sherwin from the New Jersey State Championship 1957, but hardly one from the front lines. He excluded his win a year earlier against Donald Byrne, the so-called Game of the Century (hyperbole, of course, and not his own). If I had ever been in his presence, one of my questions to him was going to be "Why did you exclude the Donald Byrne win from your game collection?" Let's imagine his answer. My own surmise has been that Bobby felt (along the lines of Kasparov's much later comments) that the Byrne game really was not as remarkable as it was made to seem. Personally I believe Fischer's play was brilliant but it was (as is typical in "brilliancies") capitalizing on especially poor play and the most impressive moves were those that actually preceded the Q sac. I have a lingering idea that the Q sac was something he was backed into when Byrne showed the glimmer of a brutal counterattack. He also included losses and draws but then only to show how he could (and should) have won. Still it is testament to his character to include these, as invariably masters publish "best games" collections that by definition are only wins. Why he included a skittles game against Reuben Fine is anyone's guess, especially Fine's, who was irked by its inclusion (especially when he claims he won most of the games played that day in his apartment). And he included a simul game against Ojars Celle, which also shocked Celle himself when a friend showed him Fischer's account of the game in a Latvian publication a few months later (Celle was Latvian). But as an aside Celle's comment is harrowing: "Never before or since have I felt such chess-playing power coming across the board at me." (See John Donaldson's superb book on Fischer's 1964 simul tour, "A Legend on the Road" [Russell Enterprises, 2005], at 147.) |
|
| Jun-09-08 |
| Petrosianic: <keypusher> <I don't think so; Black is completely lost before the game gets out of book. I think Fischer himself played several games better than this when he was 15.> It's not that <great> a game. Black loses on a book error, as you say. But it's an important one as it marked the first time in history that somebody won the US Championship and beat Reshevsky in the process. Evans was, at that time, the only other player to have won a US Championship with Reshevsky present, and he had drawn his individual game with Sammy, as had Bobby in 1957. |
|
| Jun-09-08 |
| Petrosianic: On that subject, it might be asked how many other people did what Fischer did here? Well, here are the people who won the US Championship with Reshevsky present: Reshevsky himself (Obviously
Evans
Fischer
Robert Byrne
Browne
Seirawan
Kavalek
The last two are iffy. Seirawan only tied for first, and Kavalek tied for first, but later finished behind Reshevsky in a playoff match. I'd count Seirawan but not Kavalek. Evans won two US Championships ahead of Reshevsky, but drew with Sammy both times. The people who won the US Championship AND beat Reshevsky head to head are: Fischer
Byrne
Browne
Pretty exclusive company. And since Byrne only tied for first with Reshevsky, and beat him out in a later playoff, let's knock him off too. So (redefining the statement yet again), the only people who took <clear> first place in a US Championship AND beat Reshevsky head to head are: Bobby Fischer
Walter Browne
So, no matter how he won, what Fischer acccomplished by winning this game was no small feat. |
|
| Jun-09-08 |
| RookFile: <Some call me Tim: He excluded his win a year earlier against Donald Byrne > Fischer actually wrote another game collection of his, in 1958, that you probably don't know about. I used to thumb through it at the public library. It was a rather lean book, but it did have some good insights. Anyway, Fischer put this game in there, so when he wrote another game collection, called My 60 Memorable Games, he didn't duplicate material. |
|
Jun-09-08
 |
| micartouse: The one that surprises me is the R. Byrne game which gets the 2nd most attention of all his games. But it's not even close to his most impressive in this fan's opinion. I think the charming anecdotal story is why it gets so much attention - otherwise it's just smash, smash, mate against a much weaker player. All the greats have such crushes - nothing special really. |
|
| Jun-09-08 |
| Petrosianic: I think the game you're talking about is this one:
Reshevsky vs R Byrne, 1973
This is indeed one of Byrne's most famous games (even though, oddly, it had no kibitzing before I got to it), mainly because of the monster blunder at the end. Reshevsky is winning big, but blunders with 39. Be5???. But this isn't the game from the tournament. This is just from the playoff match held 9 months later. The game that Byrne won from Reshevsky in the actual tournament is this much-less-well-known one... Oops, never mind. I was going to give the link, but that game isn't even in the database. |
|
Jun-09-08
|
| micartouse: <Petrosianic> Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to the very famous Fischer game with the story of the grandmasters in the other room. IMO, there are a dozen vastly more impressive Fischer games that come to mind, so that the R. Byrne game looks a little silly in comparison: R Byrne vs Fischer, 1963 |
|
| Jun-09-08 |
| Petrosianic: Oh, that one. Yes, that has to be Byrne's most famous game. Apart from the game itself, it has that little hook at the end, that the GM in the press room thought that the wrong person resigned. That makes the game unforgettable. |
|
Aug-15-08
 |
| InspiredByMorphy: Although still not a desirable position trading two minor pieces for a rook, black would have been better off with 9. ...Nxb3 10.exf6 Nxa1 11.fxg7 Kxg7 where at least it is still a game. On one bright point for black, although white doesn't have to recapture with 12.Qxa1 (the knight is trapped), white will lose a pawn otherwise ( 12. ...Nxc3). As a result white will need to spend a move getting the queen back into the game from the a1 square. Black would still be alive. |
|
| Sep-14-08 |
| pom nasayao: Essentially, Fischer's move 10. Bxf7 ends the game. It's just a matter of time for Reshevsky to get into his mind that he cannot in no way win over the powerful forces of Fischer. |
|
| Dec-10-08 |
| DarthStapler: Surprised this hasn't been GOTD yet - I nominate it |
|
Dec-10-08
 |
| andymac: As you will see, 10. ? is a problem of the day, albeit under it's (slightly) earlier appearance: Bastrikov vs Shamkovich, 1958 |
|
| Jan-05-09 |
| WhiteRook48: I've heard this is called "The Fischer Trap." |
|
| Feb-16-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Tarrasch once fell for this trap, I hear |
|
| Apr-12-09 |
| offramp: <Some call me Tim: That is another good point and brings to mind my longstanding curiosity of Fischer's thinking in choosing the games for that book. He chose as the first (earliest) game a good one against Sherwin from the New Jersey State Championship 1957, but hardly one from the front lines. He excluded his win a year earlier against Donald Byrne, the so-called Game of the Century (hyperbole, of course, and not his own). If I had ever been in his presence, one of my questions to him was going to be "Why did you exclude the Donald Byrne win from your game collection?" Let's imagine his answer. My own surmise has been that Bobby felt (along the lines of Kasparov's much later comments) that the Byrne game really was not as remarkable as it was made to seem. Personally I believe Fischer's play was brilliant but it was (as is typical in "brilliancies") capitalizing on especially poor play and the most impressive moves were those that actually preceded the Q sac. I have a lingering idea that the Q sac was something he was backed into when Byrne showed the glimmer of a brutal counterattack.> He excluded the Byrne game because it had appeared in his previous book. |
|
| Apr-17-09 |
| ewan14: Books on Petrosian would benefit from including some of his draws ( playing black against Bronstein and Korchnoi for example ) as against the more well known draw(s) ( Reshevsky 1953 ) |
|
| May-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: after 11 Ne6 Black should have resigned immediately, either he loses his queen with a damaged structure on the e-file, or his king is mated. |
|
Sep-08-09
 |
| Richard Taylor: I knew this game so I used the idea in game about 2 days before Fischer died! So it has a practical use! [Event "New Zealand Reserve 2008"]
[Site "Auckland. NZ"]
[Date "2008.01.16"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Richard Taylor"]
[Black "Neil Cruden"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Bc4 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O
8. O-O a6 9. Bb3 Na5 10. e5 Ne8 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. Ne6
1-0 |
|
| Sep-08-09 |
| TheChessGuy: Supposedly Fischer found this analysis in an issue of Shakhmatny Byuletin from a game from the 1958 RSFSR Championship. |
|
| Sep-08-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: It was even worse than that, according to Profile of a Prodigy. The spectators had also seen this analysis too. When they saw Reshevsky playing into this, they had all they could do to keep quiet. When the trap was sprung, they came close to a riot, so to speak. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 10.Bxf7+
