|Feb-13-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Fischer's longest game in the database. |
|Feb-20-04|| ||ekw: So RJF maneuvered for many moves here; but what was the actual value of the position? Did Yanofsky blunder finally? Was it won all along but Fischer wasn't sure or in any hurry? |
|Feb-20-04|| ||drukenknight: it certainly looks draw up to the first time control. White needs to give more checks with his R. Like on move 49, later on around move 90 when fischer makes that final push. |
|Dec-18-04|| ||Alaric: maybe 104 ... Ra2+! was the winning move |
|Dec-19-04|| ||drukenknight: 111....Rg4 seems very unnatural if you study Lucena position or whatever it is. hmm. |
|Dec-19-04|| ||drukenknight: ...Rf8 would be automatic to anyone familiar with endgame study, maybe Yanofsky got tired. I'm not sure if Rf8 is too late, Im getting something like this: |
111. Rf8 Rc2
112. Rf7 Kh1
113. Rf8 g2
114. Rh8+ Kg1
this position on move 111, is almost certainly known to endgame theory, there should be an available answer. Does anyone know?
|Dec-19-04|| ||beatgiant: After 110...g3, White is dead lost. On 111. Rf8, Black's winning strategy is "building a bridge" with ...Ra5, K comes out to g4, Rg5 blocks checks. I think this idea was known as early as Philidor. To confirm details, you can check Nalimov tablebase. |
|Dec-20-04|| ||drukenknight: it was probably known before Philidor. The position w/ K of the stronger side (in this case black) in the queening spot first appears in Salvio's book in the 17th cent. It is called "Lucena position" but does not appear in his (late 15 cent.) works. Philidor (18th cent) studied it with the weak side R on the 6th file, so of course it was understood by him. |
|Dec-06-06|| ||thegoodanarchist: This is a demonstration of one of the reasons Fischer would have beaten Karpov in 1975 - Fischer was relentless.|
The Soviets praised Karpov for his "practical" play, taking draws at "appropriate" times in events to conserve his energy.
But Fischer fought until the bitter end, frequently converting drawn positions into wins by relentless positional and psychological pressure. Fischer would not have let Karpov have easy draws!
|Dec-06-06|| ||square dance: this game is from 1962. what could that possibly have to do with 1975?|
|Dec-06-06|| ||Karpova: Karpov loves short draws: Kamsky vs Karpov, 1995|
|Dec-06-06|| ||euripides: Karpov was certainly more willing to draw with Black than Fischer. But his tenacity once he got an advantage was noticed from the start of his career. The ending that arises from move 36 is quite rare and though it would be drawn without the minor pieces I wonder what the objective result is with the minor pieces (since the knight is meant to be better than the bishop with pawns on once side). I reckon Karpov would have been as dangerous as Fischer in this position.|
|Apr-25-11|| ||perfidious: <euripides: I wonder what the objective result is with the minor pieces (since the knight is meant to be better than the bishop with pawns on once side).>|
Here's another example of this type of ending: Portisch vs C W Pritchett, 1978.
As we've seen here, the side with the knight has great practical winning chances, though it takes a while.
|Mar-06-12|| ||screwdriver: What a warrior , that Fischer was!|
|Jun-13-12|| ||El Trueno: This game is one of the rare games which makes me smile :)
If I played as black, it surely would be draw after white's 35th move. I think that Yanofsky also thought like that. But then Fischer didn't give up.. he moved the pieces slowly... then managed to win :)
A great patience in my opinion|
|Jun-09-13|| ||hoodrobin: <ekw: Did Yanofsky blunder finally?> 103.Rb2 was the fatal mistake allowing BN to e3 (Karsten Mueller).|
|Mar-04-15|| ||Howard: But is it possible that Fischer might have missed a win earlier in the game ?|
|Oct-09-15|| ||PugnaciousPawn: What an endgame battle! Bobby was an absolute master of the endgame. It's interesting to note that many of his games were very even until the endgame, where he would slowly move in for the kill with the utmost precision.|
|Apr-24-19|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: This game, and other long games not given as a draw before no play remained, makes me wonder if Magnus Carlsen found a certain amount of inspiration from Robert James.|
|Apr-24-19|| ||CopyBlanca: Why even bother talking about Karpov in the same breath as Fischer. Karpov is not even one of the top ten players of all time. Fischer is never rated lower than third by anyone.|
|Apr-24-19|| ||keypusher: <CopyBlanca: Why even bother talking about Karpov in the same breath as Fischer. Karpov is not even one of the top ten players of all time. Fischer is never rated lower than third by anyone.>|
Only an utter moron (you, for example) would leave Karpov out of the top ten. And why are you posting about Karpov here anyway? Did you get lost?
|Apr-24-19|| ||beatgiant: <keypusher>
Maybe he was responding to the previous posts on this page from 2006 that were about Karpov. I could say more, but I'm beginning to feel my age ;-)
|Apr-25-19|| ||keypusher: <beatgiant> Ah, thanks. This post is on point, then. Karpov's record in games of at least 100 moves is (I think) +6 -2 =6, excluding rapid games. One of his losses was in 2008; the other was to Kasparov in the 1990 match.|
The link below includes rapid games; it's not clear in every case whether a game is rapid or not.
Fischer's record in games of at least 100 moves is +2-0=1.
See also Kramnik on Karpov:
<I don't know anyone with stronger fighting qualities. When I started to play in supertournaments, I was amazed by his ability to readjust himself on the spot. Karpov would play a game, come under pressure, defend for six hours, fortifies - it's very hard to break through his defence, he brilliantly calculated the variants and so defended very stubbornly - and the position would become almost drawn. The opponent would relax for a bit, and the position would become completely equal. Any player would agree to a draw and be glad that this torture was over. But Karpov would immediately start playing for a win! He could very easily forget what happened on the board before, detach himself from position's history. Karpov wasn't prone to any kind of mood swings; it was always as though he just came, sat down and started playing. If he sees any chance, he always tries to exploit it.>
V Keymer vs Carlsen, 2019
Bottom line: Karpov, like Fischer, <fought until the bitter end, frequently converting drawn positions into wins by relentless positional and psychological pressure>.