< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Mar-03-16|| ||maxi: It is clear that when Tal played 16...BxR he had to have foreseen the manoeuvre 18...Rxg+, ...Qe5, ...QxN, ...Qg4+. Remarkable.|
By the way, in My 60 Memorable Games Fischer says that 19.KxB loses after 19... Rxh2 20.Qf7 Rh1+, which "... produces a winning attack from nowhere!". But I fail to see anything after 21.Kg2 Qh2+ 22.Kf3 Qh3+ 23.Kf4 Qh4+ 24.Ke5. The White knight is excellently place and the White f2 Pawn can move to f4 to hamper checks. If Black is not careful he may actually lose. Look up <dale2222222>'s comment in this thread.
|Mar-03-16|| ||Howard: Soltis called this draw one of the most "overrated" games in history, and, frankly, he's right. It was a good game, but not worth all the hype in my view.|
Incidentally, Maxi, he does point out that 19.Kxc1 (or KxB) would NOT have lost, after all, contrary to what Fischer said. To be fair, though, the path to a draw would have been rather thorny, so Fischer's 19.Kh1 was best.
|Mar-03-16|| ||maxi: Howard, you mean 19.Kf1. Thanks for the info, I have not read Soltis' book.|
When going over Fischer's games one see's he avoids confusing (unclear?) lines.
Objectively speaking, Fischer's move 19.Kh1 is better, since it leads straight to the draw. But it is possible to consider 19.Kf1 a better move, in a different sense: it is a very devious move. It is easy for Black in this line to overreach and die. It is Black, not White, who has to play carefully. You see, White pieces are far too close to the Black King for its confort.
|Jul-09-16|| ||morfishine: Exactly what does "objectively speaking" mean anyways? This looks like another attempt by an imitator annotator striving to gain credibility in a field they are not qualified to comment on in the first place|
|Aug-10-16|| ||posoo: MORFUDLAIN is a SNOBB
in dis context OBJECTAVLY SPEKING means dat it is a SURE WAY to get da draugh if u think dat is da best result. and he is rite!
he made a good post do NOT be jells.
|Sep-15-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <but Fischer got the long title on his placard.>|
Tal got the <better> title on his placard.
|Sep-15-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Howard: Soltis called this draw one of the most "overrated" games in history, and, frankly, he's right. It was a good game, but not worth all the hype in my view.>|
Soltis never played at this level, so he wouldn't know. And neither would you, actually.
|Sep-30-16|| ||Howard: One would suspect that Soltis COULD have played at this level...if he had a computer to help him, naturally.|
Still say Soltis was correct when he stated in his book that if the two players in this game had been almost anyone else, this game would have been quickly forgotten.
|Oct-01-16|| ||HeMateMe: <I'm still blaming HeMateMe.> |
You're not the first person to say that.
|Oct-01-16|| ||HeMateMe: was Leipzig in East or West Germany?|
|Oct-01-16|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: <HMM>--East Germany.|
|Nov-08-16|| ||Saniyat24: What are the other interesting options of White in the 16th move instead of Nf7?|
|Nov-25-16|| ||amaurobius: <Joshka: I posted the pic on Ray's page, this will get settled once and for all :-) Heck even Nigel would know too>
Ray has replied on 24 November - he thinks Forintos or possibly Eising.|
|Nov-25-16|| ||roberts partner: <Joshka: I posted the pic on Ray's page, this will get settled once and for all :-) Heck even Nigel would know too> Ray has replied on 24 November - he thinks Forintos or possibly Eising.|
Neither Forintos nor Eising was present at Leipzig 1960. The correct identification of the dark-suited spectator is given on page 4 of this thread.
|Feb-17-17|| ||keypusher: <Howard: Soltis called this draw one of the most "overrated" games in history, and, frankly, he's right. It was a good game, but not worth all the hype in my view.>|
Tal and Fischer both included it in their best games collections. It's probably worth a fair amount of hype.
|Feb-17-17|| ||Howard: Regarding the above comment, Soltis did concede one point about that game, and that was that neither Fischer nor Tal "could have been accused of self-promotion" because they were both known for being very objective about their games.|
Soltis, however, also argued that the game actually had a few errors in it that Fischer (I've never seen Tal's comments, though.) had missed. He also stated (and I think Soltis was dead-on)that probably the main reason this game got so much undue attention was because of the strong rivalry between these two.
In other words, if the two players in this overrated encounter had been almost anyone else, this game would have been forgotten decades ago.
|Feb-17-17|| ||keypusher: <Soltis, however, also argued that the game actually had a few errors in it that Fischer (I've never seen Tal's comments, though.) had missed.>|
This game has <lots> of errors. But it's legendary.
Lasker vs Schlechter, 1910
< He also stated (and I think Soltis was dead-on)that probably the main reason this game got so much undue attention was because of the strong rivalry between these two.>
Does Soltis think that is why Fischer and Tal themselves were impressed?
<In other words, if the two players in this overrated encounter had been almost anyone else, this game would have been forgotten decades ago.>
Games are rarely evaluated independently of the circumstances in which they were played.
|Nov-18-17|| ||Octavia: Fancy - a chess Olympiad in Leipzig, DDR! I was 5 then, learned chess from 1 of my big bro & played it with family, friends & in pubs until I went to sleepy Scotland in 1970 where I learned that you could play chess in clubs & competitions. Chess was a well kept secret.|
|Nov-18-17|| ||maxi: Surely this is a fascinating game. Perhaps some of the negative comments come from overexposure. You tend to be less impressed with something you are very used to.|
|Jul-09-18|| ||Stonehenge: French Drawings:
|Jul-09-18|| ||maxi: Many beautiful pictures in <Stonehenge>'s source! Where is it from, Slovenia? Unfortunately I have zero knowledge of the Slavic languages.|
|Jul-09-18|| ||Stonehenge: It's a Croatian site.|
|Jul-09-18|| ||maxi: Look <morphishine>, what I meant before by "Objectively speaking" is that the move 19.Kh1 probably would have a higher computer evaluation, but that from a human perspective is it perhaps better to play 19.Kf1, because, while the draw is less obvious for White, the going is very tricky for Black and he actually has losing chances. Not that I think you really care; you probably just felt like insulting somebody.|
|Jul-09-18|| ||maxi: Thank you <Stonehenge>.|
|Jul-21-18|| ||Albion 1959: The picture shows Tal about to make his 7th move Ne7. A lively colourful little game, far removed from all those "Grandmaster draws". I don't understand why Soltis is so disparaging about this game? Okay, it's flawed, but given the level of sharp tactical play, it is very rare even for strong grandmasters to find the right moves. Maybe with a top rate search engine or computer, would it be possible to grind out the correct move at every turn? Who is Andy Soltis anyway? I doubt if he would have got a draw in this position against either of these two, playing with the white or black pieces! If he had got a draw, I reckon that he would have been quite pleased with his efforts? A draw against the World Champion and a future World Champion!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·