|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Mar-09-08
 |
| A.G. Argent: <..."Einstein"...> Yo, yo, yo, y'all. It's all explained by CG dot com on page 5 of this kibitz. |
 |
| Mar-09-08 |
| drpoundsign: E=MC2 SUCKA!! |
|
| Mar-09-08 |
| DarthStapler: 1961 was a bad year for Tal. If this game had been played one year earlier, Tal would have won. |
|
Mar-09-08
 |
| JG27Pyth: What a game! Fischer made that ending look easy... but there were so many ways to screw it up. LOL. How great to out-Tal, Tal, with that Queen sac. You know some part of Tal was thinking... "Ah, yes, of course I saw 22.fxe5!! I just didn't think he had the nerve! Finally someone else who plays this game the way I do... well done!" And Tal was a good enough sport to think that way, too. I wish these guys had gone head to head, at the top, or near top form, more often. Tal was a top dog in Blitz long after he'd lost his #1 chops/stamina for slow chess... Did he and Fischer ever go at it, Blitz? I think the relativity comment is an unclear reference to the paradox of trying to outsmart oneself -- Another was of saying -- I've been beaten at my own game -- suggesting that Fischer's play there was very Tal-like, perhaps even like a younger Tal. It's not the most accurate direct understanding of Relativity (special or general) but then, Tal was a literature guy, not an engineer. Relativity does, indirectly at least lead into time-paradoxes and other fun-house mirror sort of effects. So, that's what I think Tal was getting at with his comment. |
|
Mar-09-08
 |
| JohnBoy: <JG> - there are blitz games from about 1970 (when Tal was like #3) between the two - from Herceg Novi. Fischer cleaned up. |
|
Mar-09-08
 |
| whatthefat: <JohnBoy: <JG> - there are blitz games from about 1970 (when Tal was like #3) between the two - from Herceg Novi. Fischer cleaned up.> Fischer was obviously playing sublimely at that time, but Tal was a long way from his best in 1970. He was not in the top 7 on the FIDE rating list (see http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Tr...), and was rather in the doldrums going by the chessmetrics ratings (see the graph in http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Summ...). In fact, chessmetrics rates him between 14th and 20th in the world during the course of 1970 (http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play...), which is his absolute worst year between 1957 pre-championship run Tal and 1989 dying Tal. 1973 was when he hit peak form again (and was even considered the favourite candidate to challenge Fischer for the crown), but alas he declined again just as the world championship cycle began. |
|
| Mar-10-08 |
| PaulLovric: Was Fischer Fischer here or Tal Tal, or perhaps Fischer Tal or Tal Fischer, I've hear that comment somewhere can someone explain it? |
|
Mar-10-08
 |
| kevin86: Could a 1990s version of Einthein's theory be: E=MC hammer? lol A great battle between two titans-this time won by the teenager. |
|
Jun-27-08
 |
| whiteshark: <PaulLovric: <can someone explain it?>> Sure, but your head will explode upon it. |
|
Jun-27-08
 |
| Bishoprick: The "best by test," comment was not meant to suggest a real test. It was just part of the lingo (what might be called today "trash talk,")of the talking chess community in New York, along with "You are now in Checkoslovakia," (when administering repeated "checks,")and a few other expressions which could be heard on Washington Square, the Manhattan Chess Club, the Marshall, the New York Chess and Checker Club, and yes, even at the Brooklyn Chess Club in those halcyon days. Bobby made his own contribution to this when discussing the relative merits of 1.d4 or 1.e4, or his comment about the King's Gambit declined. It has all become part of chess lore. |
|
Jun-27-08
 |
| Tessie Tura: <Tal was a literature guy, not an engineer. Relativity does, indirectly at least lead into time-paradoxes and other fun-house mirror sort of effects. So, that's what I think Tal was getting at with his comment.> There’s a possibility Tal never said it. It doesn’t really sound like him, when you think about it. I seem to remember the quote came from an interview with Tal and Fischer of dubious provenance. Frank Brady said Fischer denied flatly the quotes attributed to him, so if true it would follow that Tal didn’t say what he’s supposed to have said, either. I don’t know if anyone ever asked Tal. Tal did once joke, in the early days when he was cleaning Fischer’s clock with monotonous regularity, that he was entitled to sign autographs as Bobby since he beat him so often. Fischer probably didn’t think that was very funny. |
|
Jun-28-08
 |
| percyblakeney: <Tal was a literature guy, not an engineer. Relativity does, indirectly at least lead into time-paradoxes and other fun-house mirror sort of effects. So, that's what I think Tal was getting at with his comment.> Maybe he thought it didn't sound as good to say "It's difficult to play against Dostoevsky's Idiot". :-) Otherwise my interpretation of the alleged comment would be that Tal meant that Fischer was playing scientific chess of a sort as pure as Einstein's theory. |
|
| Oct-10-08 |
| maxi: Yes, <leow>, you are right. Taking the silly b7 Pawn right away with 34. b7 would have led straight to Black having to sacrifice the Queen to avoid mate, no questions asked. Clearly Fischer was playing under great stress, since he had never been able to beat Tal. This explains, too, missing the rather obvious 21. h5. Of course, after taking the Pawn there is the variation 34.Rb7 Qh1+ 35.Ka2 Qd5+ and you have to make sure that there is no perpetual. This should have been easy for Fischer since there are two Pawns for shelter and the Rook on the b-file, but he was very uptight and just did not want to take any chances.The Russians thought that Tal had fallen into a prepared trap; that's why Tal said that it was difficult to play against Einstein's theory, that is, great theoretical preparation. |
|
| Dec-02-08 |
| WhiteRook48: <How to demolish Tal by Bobby Fischer> |
|
| Dec-04-08 |
| WhiteRook48: <Amarande> How can 1. g4!? be White's best moves.
1. e4 and 1. d4 are MUCH better... even 1. Nf3 or even 1. c4, like Fischer did in that game vs Panno (1. c4 1-0) |
|
| Dec-23-08 |
| WhiteRook48: This doesn't usually happen to Tal... usually Tal does this to his opponents |
|
| Jan-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: No, 1. Na3 is White's best move. It wins every time. |
|
| Jan-03-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Fischer probably said "yes yes yes I broke Einstein's theory YAY" |
|
| Feb-03-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 1. h4 is best |
|
| Mar-19-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 47. g6+ might be better |
|
| Mar-19-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Fritz says that both Fischer's 47. Ra6 and 47. g6+ both win. Fritz actually prefers 47. Ra6. A win is a win, either way. |
|
| Apr-16-09 |
| WhiteRook48: this game is a Fishy one. Maybe they're Tal Tales |
|
Jul-01-09
 |
| talisman: 23.fxe5! is pretty doggone good. |
|
| Nov-05-09 |
| remolino: By 47. Ra6 Fisher is simply highlighting to Tal that he has all the time in the world to win this position, suggesting that Tal should resign. 47. g6+ is more forcing but almost any move that does not give back material wins at this point. |
|
| Nov-05-09 |
| Riverbeast: Maybe Fischer enjoyed toying with Tal in this position a little bit...A little payback for the 4-0 sweep Tal gave him a few years earlier ;-) |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 23.fxe5
