< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|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:
|Oct-09-11|| ||Maximus0723: Here is the pick of Tal and Fischer in the hospital.
|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”?|
|Jul-29-13|| ||tsanadi: love the ending position.|
|Nov-21-13|| ||Meaux: Tal fell very ill during the tournament, and had to withdraw before completion. Fischer, a friend of Tal, was the only contestant who visited him in the hospital.|
|Nov-21-13|| ||ughaibu: How do you explain the third person in one of the photos? Ghost of Alekhine?|
|Nov-21-13|| ||Meaux: да , Алекса́ндр Алекса́ндрович Але́хин.
Yes, Alexander Alexandrovich Alekhine!|
|Mar-03-14|| ||zydeco: A few variations:
If 41.Rxe6 Nxe6+ 42.Kxg6 Nxf4+ 43.gxf4 b5 44.Kxh5 b4 45.Kg6 a4 46.h5 b3 47.h6 bxa2! 48.h7 a1=Q and black wins (or 47.axb3 a3).
If 41....b5 42.Rxe6 Nxe6 43.Bd2 and white should be winning.
If 42.Kg7 Ne6+ 43.Kxg6 Nxf4+ 44.gxf4 Rxa2 black can get his rook to h2, trade the rook for white's passed-pawn, and his passed queenside pawns will be far enough advanced to outmatch white's rook.
45.Bxf8 Rxf8 46.f4 looks very strong (if 46....Rd8 47.Rc2+), but Fischer's move puts black in zugzwang.
|Mar-03-14|| ||RandomVisitor: 15...Bf5 has surprising strength... Tal might have been too ill to find it.|
click for larger view
Deep Rybka 4.1 x64:
[-0.62] d=20 16.0-0 Qxc2 17.Qxc2 Bxc2 18.Rac1 Be4 19.f3 Bd5 20.Rc2 Ne7 21.c4 Be6 22.Bxe7 Kxe7 23.Rb2 Ra7 24.Rfb1 Rb8 25.Rb6 a5 26.Kf2 Bf5 27.R1b2 a4 28.g4
[-0.77] d=20 16.f3 Qxc2 17.Qxc2 Bxc2 18.Rc1 Bf5 19.Kf2 f6 20.Be3 0-0-0 21.Rhd1 Kc7 22.Bc4 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Rd8 24.Rxd8 Nxd8 25.a3 Kc6 26.a4 Kd6 27.Bb6 Nc6 28.Bf7 g6 29.Ke3
|Mar-03-14|| ||RandomVisitor: 12.exd5! would have been better for white:
click for larger view
Deep Rybka 4.1 x64:
<[+0.36] d=21 12...Nb4> 13.Rc1 Bf5 14.d6 f6 15.dxe7 fxg5 16.Bc4 Rc8 17.Bb3 Nc6 18.Kf1 g4 19.Qd5 Qf6 20.Qd2 Qxe7 21.Nd5 Qd8 22.Qe1 Qd6 23.Rd1 Qc5 24.Qe3 Qxe3 25.Nxe3
[+0.51] d=21 12...Nd4 13.Bd3 Bf5 14.Bxf5 Ndxf5 15.Qd2 f6 16.Be3 Nxe3 17.fxe3 Nf5 18.0-0-0 Nd6 19.Qd3 Qg4 20.a3 0-0 21.Qe2 Qxe2 22.Nxe2 Kf7 23.c3 Rac8 24.Kc2 Rc4 25.Rh3
|Mar-03-14|| ||RookFile: This all looks like very deep stuff. One can understand Fischer's reluctance to slug it out tactically with Tal when a positional path was available.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||kwid: Here is another look at 12.exd5 instead of Bxe7. Contrary to Naka's view
about Fisher I think that those two players were very gifted players and would they have had access to computer guidance as available to all players now, they would be the top candidates for the world crown. Unfortunately the cold war mottling had a devastating effect on Fisher for which he needed physiological help to keep him out of politics.
Instead he was used as a pawn in the east west struggle for which he was ill prepared and thus had to suffer the consequences for growing up as a child protégée with a one sided mind track seemingly stuck on chess.
His ignorance due to an apparent lack of education to deal successfully
with his non chess perception affecting his life style rests on the shoulders of those capable people around him. He did not deserve such a shameful treatment to have a disgraceful life ending. |
(496) Robert James Fischer - Mikhail Tal [B32]
Curacao Candidates Willemstad CURACAO (11), 19.05.1962
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 a6 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7.Qxd6 Qf6 8.Qd1 Qg6 9.Nc3 Nge7 10.h4 h5 11.Bg5 d5 12.Bxe7
(12...Nd4 13.Bd3 Bf5 14.Bxf5 Nexf5 15.Qd3 f6 16.Be3 Qxg2 17.0–0–0 Qf3 18.Ne4 Qe2 19.Qxe2 Nxe2+ 20.Kb1 Ned4 21.Bxd4 exd4 22.Ng3 Nxg3 23.fxg3 Ke7 24.a4 b5 25.Rxd4 Kd6 26.Rb4 Rhb8 27.c3 bxa4 28.Rxa4 Kxd5 29.Re1 a5 30.Kc2 Rg8 31.b3 g5 32.Rd4+ Kc6 33.Re6+ Kc7 34.Rxf6 gxh4 35.gxh4 Rg2+ 36.Kd3 Re8 37.Rfd6 Rg3+ 38.Kc4 Rc8 39.b4 axb4 40.cxb4 Rf3 41.Re6 Kb7+ 42.Kd5 Rf1 43.Ke5 Rg8 44.Rd7+ Kc8 45.Rh7 Re1+ 46.Kf6 Rf1+ 47.Ke7 Rg4 48.Rxh5 Rxb4 49.Rh8+ Kc7 50.h5+–)
13.Rc1 Bf5 14.d6 f6 15.dxe7 fxg5 16.Bc4 Rc8 17.Bb3 Nc6 18.hxg5 (18.Kf1 g4 19.Qd5 Qf6 20.Qd2 Qxe7 21.Nd5 Qd8 22.Qe1 Rh6 23.Ne3 Bh7 24.c3 Kf8 25.Kg1 Bd3 26.Rd1 Rd6 27.Rd2 Na5 28.Nf5 Bxf5 29.Qxe5 Rxd2 30.Qxf5+ Qf6 31.Qxc8+ Ke7 32.Qc7+ Ke8 33.Qc8+ Rd8 34.Qe6+ Qxe6 35.Bxe6 Ke7 36.Bf5 Rd2 37.b4 Nc4 38.Kh2 Kf6 39.Bb1 Rxf2 40.Re1 Nd6 41.Kg3 Rd2=)
18...Qxg5 19.0–0 Nd4 20.f4 Qxe7 21.Re1 Bg4 22.Qd3 Nxb3 23.axb3 Rd8 24.Qg6+ Kf8 25.Rxe5 Rh6 26.Qe4 Re6 27.Rxe6 Qxe6 28.Qxe6 Bxe6 29.Rd1 Rc8 30.Rd2 Bf5 31.Kf2 g6 32.Ke3 a5 33.Ne4 Rc7 34.c3 Re7 35.Rd4 Kf7 36.Kf3 Rxe4 37.Rxe4 Bxe4+ 38.Kxe4 Kf6 39.Ke3 Kf5 40.Kf3 g5 41.fxg5 Kxg5 42.Kg3 h4+ 43.Kh3 Kh5 44.g3 hxg3 45.Kxg3 Kg5 46.c4 Kf5 47.b4 axb4 48.Kf3 Ke6 49.Ke4 Kd6 50.Ke3 Kc5 51.b3 b5=]
12...d4 13.Bg5 dxc3 14.bxc3 Qxe4+ 15.Be2 f6 16.Be3 Bg4 17.Qd3 Qxd3 18.cxd3 Bxe2 19.Kxe2 0–0–0 20.Rad1 Ne7 21.d4 Nd5 22.Rc1 Rhe8 23.Rhd1 f5 24.Bg5 Rd7 25.dxe5 Rxe5+ 26.Kf3 Re4 27.Rd3 Rc4 28.Rcd1 Rxc3 29.Rxc3+ Nxc3 30.Rc1 Rc7 31.Bf4 Rc6 32.Be5 Nd5 33.Rd1 Nf6 34.Kf4 g6 35.f3 Nd7 36.Bd6 Rc2 37.g3 Re2 38.Kg5 Re6 39.Bf4 Nf8 40.Rd6 a5 41.Kh6 Re2 42.Rd2 Re7 43.Bd6 Rh7+ 44.Kg5 Rf7 45.Rb2 f4 46.Bxf4 Rf5+ 47.Kh6 b5 48.Bd6 b4 49.g4 Rxf3 50.g5 Ne6 51.Kxg6 Rd3 52.Be5 Re3 53.Kf5 Nf8 54.Rg2 Rf3+ 55.Bf4 Kd7 56.g6 Ne6 57.g7 Rxf4+ 58.Ke5 Rf8 59.gxf8Q Nxf8 60.Kd5 a4 61.Rg7+ Ke8 62.Kd6 b3 63.a3
|Mar-04-14|| ||perfidious: <kwid> What <is> Naka's opinion of Fischer?|
|Mar-04-14|| ||kwid: Mar-04-14
<Premium Chessgames Member perfidious: <kwid> What <is> Naka's opinion of Fischer?>
I read somewhere about his believe that Fisher's style does not measure up to the current top elite players.
But I cannot recall the exact words as written on that site.
|Mar-04-14|| ||tamar: If it was Reddit, this was the quote:
How do you think Fischer would do against top players like yourself, Carlsen, or Kasparov? How would Morphy do?
Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us, but this is due to the fact that the game has so fundamentally changed. If Fischer had a few years to use computers, I think he would probably be on the same level.>
|Mar-04-14|| ||RookFile: As I said before - Fischer with access to a computer? Forget about it. There has never been a more fanatically motivated player, ever. A few years? The guy went from 1800 to US champ in 1 year. It wouldn't take him that long.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·