At significant depth (39+ ply on branches and much deeper on some), SF rates Rc7 as -0.4 (small advantage for Fischer) and Ra3 as -2.0, and as the analysis depth increases, it likes Rc7 less and less.

I find myself agreeing with most of his posts.

Fischer , the teenage Fischer, was surpassing the ageing tired Botvinnik by this game ..

Botvinnik being propped up by Geller and the rest of the Soviet School of Chess. lol>

<Fischer and Botvinnik have pretty much slipped into obscurity as the chess world moves on and the chess understanding of today's top players has surpassed theirs, but at Varna in 1962, one of the most looked forward to games was the World Champion Botvinnik against the hopeful Fischer.>

http://tartajubow.blogspot.com/2016...

I agree Petrosianic it is rather odd, especially with Fischer and the fact an english translation of the 2015 book: 'Bobby Fischer, The Final Years' was recently published.

C.N. 11654

Edward Winter adds:

"Among the many dozens of volumes about Fischer, Sverrisson’s exceptionally informative and gripping work stands out, and for as long as interest in Fischer endures, it will be avidly read and quoted."

But the linked lad is just a casual chess blogger and therefore totally sane, not chess daft like you, me and a load of others here.

He missed out the best bit when these two met. 'The Three Words' it is bloggers gold dust.

"Botvinnik told me: "Fischer has only spoken three words to me in his life. When we were introduced, he pointed to himself and said 'Fischer'. When we sat down to play here, we bumped heads and he said 'Sorry'. At the end of the game, he said 'Draw'."

https://www.theguardian.com/obituar...

Not mine, we're talking about the name "Tartajubow". I'll bet that wouldn't vex you for a second.

Mine is actually based on annotators who frequently use the phrase "Petrosianic maneuvering" in describing a long protracted series of maneuvers. So, in that context "Petrosianic" means "Like Petrosian".

Actually my post is a bit irrelevant because I've just noticed the lad posted this on Boxing Day 2016!

Sorry, I thought this was a recent observation by Petrosianic. (who is to blame for this uncharacteristic error by me.)

1) 0.0 52... Rh1 53. Rg4+ Kc5 54. Kg2 Re1 55. Rg5+ Kc4 56. Rg4+ Kb3 57. Rg3+ Ka4 58. Rg4+

2) 0.0 52... b5 53. h5 b4 54. h6 Rh1 55. Kg2 Rh5 56. Ra6 b3 57. Rxa7 Rxh6 58. Rb7

There's so much talk in this game about whether Black could have won it, that I wanted to see what White's best chances were. Stockfish has the eval as high as +0.9 after 23...b6?! Unfortunately, though Stockfish is great at finding moves, it's horrible at explaining itself. If you go over a game, you'll go nuts hearing it say "Right on target", "Very precise", or similarly useless comments all through the game. If a player rejects a move, the engine almost always claims they overlooked it, rather than try to figure out <why> they rejected it.

In this case, of 23...b6?! it claims "This overlooks an opportunity to increase a bishop's scope by moving it to a better square." It suggests Bf6, but does not, of course, explain what it would do when it got there.

After the next move, 24. Bf3?, which drops the eval from +0.9 to -0.3, it just says "That's an unfortunate error" (which is again, a useless comment). It suggests Kg2 instead, but of course does not explain the benefits of this move, forcing us to work it out ourselves.

After 24. Bf3? Ne6 White loses the advanced QP within a couple of moves, and Black's position is obviously better for the rest of the game.

But it's not clear how the suggested move, 24. Kg2 does any better. When you play the recommended move, the eval drops from +0.9 to +0.4, proving that it was never really +0.9 at all. After 24. Kg2 Black plays Ne6, just the same. Same thing if White plays 24. Bh2.

But the elimination of the d pawn is what leaves Black clearly better. And that happened because Black was able to play fxe6, and then e5, cutting off White's defense of the pawn. So, what if White avoids exchanging Knights?

24. Bf3 Ne6 25. Bh2 Nd4 is a bit uncomfortable for White. So, what if White hadn't played Bf3?

24. Kg2 Ne6 25. Bh2 Nd4. <Now> White has Ba6, which looks nice. White seems better here, but in that case maybe Black shouldn't have played Nd4. Maybe Nec5, and White only seems a bit better. The QP still looks dangerous but it's not threatening to advance

So, let's say that the problem with 24. Bf3? is in losing the possibility of playing Ba6 if the c5 Knight moves. That seems clear now. Kg2 isn't good in itself, it's only good in that it <doesn't> move the B off that diagonal. Likewise, the problem with Fischer's ...b6 was that it gave White the possible threat of Ba6, NOT that it "overlooked an opportunity to increase the Bishop's scope", as Stockfish claimed.