|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-24-09
 | | Eyal: <Analysis by Rybka 2.3.2a mp : 30-ply
1. (0.00): 36...Nb6 37.Kg5 Nc4 [etc.]>
Yeah, this might be the last chance Tal had to save the game - a key continuation is 38.Be7 Ne5 39.Bf6 Nd7, kicking the bishop from f6 and holding on to g6. A few moves earlier, 33...Nf6 - allowing the white king to f4 - was already quite risky. Instead, Black could pretty much force a draw with 33...Kd7 34.Rxd5+ Ke6 35.Ra5 b6 36.Rxa6 Kxe5; 33...Rc5 34.Bxg7 Kd7 was also safer. Kasparov, in his notes to the game, says that in a sense Tal's troubles began with 23...f5, giving scope to Fischer's bishop, though of course that by itself shouldn't have led to the loss. He could have played instead 23...exd4 24.cxd4+ (24.Rxd4 Re5) Kd7, with a blockading knight on the d5 square, in order to consolidate a minimal advantage. |
 |
Jul-25-09
 | | Gambit All: Why not 37...  xa2? |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | ROADDOG: Incredible battle, quite a sluggfest. Wonder how long the game took to play? |
|
Jul-25-09
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: Petrosian didn't fare much better in a 2R&B vs. 2R&N endgame in the 1971 match (Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971), but the pawn sacrifice in this game is incredible. Who else would have seen it and tried it? |
|
Jul-25-09
 | | WannaBe: Yes, this is one of the best game ever, in the annals of the history of chess. And yes, it is also true, "Bobby Fischer Goes to War", it is recorded, that Tal was ill, and Bobby was the only visitor... What a good bood that is!
Some of the other games can also be found in "Fischer vs. Russians". |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | Ishaan: What a game! |
|
Jul-25-09
 | | Gilmoy: A boggling endgame: It's All About The Passed Pawn. At <25.dxe5> Fischer is already envisioning an aggressive King march to attack weak g7/g6. <28.Rcd1> He "drops" his c-pawn to re-activate his King, because he sees it's really just a <delayed exchange> for Black's undefendable g-pawn. <31.Bf4 32.Be5> is a delightful and mesmerizing way to vacate the f4/g5 path for his King, with two free tempi. <Gambit All: 37..Rxa2> 38.Kg5 and White wins both pawns back, and has a passed pawn with close King support, which surely costs Black a piece. In contrast, White's B can single-handedly stop Black's dreaded Two Connected Passed Pawns on the Q-side. A Bishop is the only non-Queen piece that can do this, which is precisely one of its strengths in a B-v-N endgame. Conversely, White's K trumps a lone N, so Black's K-side was already hanging by a thread. Tal agreed that <38..Re6> was the only possible defense of g6. Corollary 1: If Fischer only had an N instead of a B, then he wouldn't have dared to attack with his King vs. pawns on both wings. Corollary 2: Fischer surely saw all that around or before 20, when he was selecting his long-term plan. <20.Rad1> hangs his a2-pawn because <It's All About The Passed Pawn On The Kingside>. |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | TugasKamagong: Great game, great pun! I mean, the pun's really good even if you didn't know the Jackson Browne song. |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | costachess: what about 11. ... f6 ? |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | redsoxnation: I believe Tal played Fischer evenly over the course of their games. If Tal hadn't been in ill-health after 1961, we might have seen more of this brilliant chess between two of its greatest players. |
|
Jul-25-09
 | | whiteshark: What's wrong with the pawn-grabbing move <32...Nxa2>? 
click for larger view e.g. <33.Rxc6+ bxc6 34.Bxg7 Kd7 35.Kf4 Ke6 36.Kg5>
click for larger view <36... c5 37.Kxh5 c4 38.Kg6 c339. h5 c2> 
click for larger view |
|
Jul-25-09
 | | kevin86: A great one-could you expect less from two players this good? |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | WhiteRook48: nice endgame manuevering |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | tivrfoa: after 33, black was with a good position and a pawn ahead... :/ I think the problem is that white king was better placed. |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | MorphysMojo: Jackson Brown was a wimp on many levels, eg. song lyrics, what a whiner! Also, Brown would wistfully eye 10LB dumbbells with his sunken chest and ectomorphic body. He hardly belongs in the same sentence as Fischer; but pehaps Tal, as he was no athlete, but Tal had more fun with women than Jackson Brown ever did, despite Bronws' significantly greater opportunities. |
|
| Jul-25-09 | | blacksburg: omg what the heck did i just read?!?!?
i suspect that jackson browne met a few ladies in his day, but compared to Tal, who knows. i promise you that browne pulled more tail than fischer, though. heck, i've pulled more tail in the last year than fischer probably did in his whole life. what am i talking about here? something's gone horribly wrong on this page. |
|
Jul-25-09
 | | Check It Out: lol the last two posts have me in stitches!
Anyways, what a game. Most the questions I had while playing through this masterpiece were asked in earlier posts, such as why not take the g2 pawn, why not take the a2 pawn, what the heck is going on anyways??, etc. Fischer's play seems like the next level of Capablanca's game. And Tal's play is just other-worldly to me. |
|
Jan-10-11
 | | jmboutiere: According to Rybka 3 black is slightly better after 22.Rhe8
37...Rc6 better than 37...Re2
57...Ng7 better than 57...Rf4 |
|
Mar-06-11
 | | technical draw: A picture of this game:
http://www.echecs-photos.be/BobbyFi... |
|
| Oct-09-11 | | Maximus0723: Here is the pick of Tal and Fischer in the hospital.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_h91cbA_dN... |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | Eric Farley: Today we see a lot of arguments about who would be better: Fischer or Kasparov? It's very difficult to compare players of different times, but I think that Fischer would come out a winner. The reason is as follows:
1)Opening : both displayed excellent opening preparation, so they'd be even here
2)Middle game: that's where a player's talent shows the most. Both were very talented, and they'd be even here too.
3)Ending : endings can divided into 2 parts: Endgame Vision (visualizing what you have to do) and Endgame Technique(doing what you have to do after you visualized what you have to do).
Endgame Technique : Fischer was better.
Endgame Vision : Fischer was VASTLY superior.
Kasparov's endings are riddled with blunders. In Piket-Kasparov(2000), Kasparov made THREE blunders in a row. In Kasparov-Ye Juangchuan 2002, he blundered so miserably that the analyst
(Soltys) gave two ?? to the move. Ironically, he won this game because the Chinese blundered too. But were Kasparov playing a Fischer (or a Lasker, Capablanca, Petrosian,etc) he'd lose the game. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | Kinan: And who said it's between these two? The comparison should be between the 2 greatest players in history, Kasparov and Alekhine. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | Eric Farley: To Kinan; I think you misunderstood me.
I wasn't trying to compare Fischer and Kasparov(a difficult thing to do as I said) based on the assumption that these two were the greatest players that ever lived. I was just trying to compare two great players. The greatest player that ever lived NEVER existed.To be the greatest player that ever lived a player would have to have a number of qualities that no player in the world ever displayed.They all had flaws. Alekhine was a great player but he was a coward: he ran away from a rematch with Capablanca like a dog with its tail between its legs. If you're the greatest player that ever lived you would fear nobody "born of a woman's womb." Capablanca was a great player, but he lacked stamina and was too vain. He even claimed that he didn't have a chess set at home, as if to say I'm so great that I don't need to study. Yeah, right(Buenos Aires 1927). Kasparov was great but a terrible endgame player and also left a lot to be desired on moral grounds. The greatest player in the world wouldn't do what he did in his 1994 game with Polgar(and he was caught on tape). And so forth and so on. Now it may seem that I'm very critical of these players. I'm not! They were great players. I'm just saying that NONE would qualify as the greatest for the reasons I've mentioned. |
|
| Nov-13-11 | | Kinan: Then why did you compare these 2 specifically?
I would agree with you a bit that you can't say for sure who is the greatest but not for the reasons you have mentioned. I have a different reason which is the difference of era and time that makes it impossible to know if Morphy is better than Kasparov or if Tal is better than Lasker. |
|
Nov-06-12
 | | AylerKupp: <Eric Farley> Would you then say that Fischer was a coward because he ran away from defending his world champion title against Karpov in 1975 and therefore disqualify him from consideration as “the greatest”? |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 57.g7
