|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jul-07-10 |
| Petrosianic: <The Immortal Overhyped Game. :)> I think some people consider it that, a) because it's short, and b) because the best part never happened (Byrne resigned first). But it is a great game, possibly Fischer's best. |
 |
| Jul-07-10 |
| Petrosianic: To compare this game to the Morphy game, the Duke and Count could legitimately have resigned after 7. Qb3. But it wouldn't have been one of the most published games in history if they had. When Fischer called Byrne's resignation "a bitter disappointment", he wasn't kidding. Byrne's Revenge, that's what this game should have been titled in 60 Memorable. |
|
| Jul-07-10 |
| Jim Bartle: I like the elegance of the queen's seemingly harmless first move, just one square to d7, leaving white in a hopeless position. |
|
| Jul-07-10 |
| morfishine: <pawn to QB4>"compare this famous brilliancy by a player of similar age: Morphy vs Duke Karl-Count Isouard, 1858"...PLEEEEEEZ...Morphy played against a very average, if not poor player, WHILE THEY WERE WATCHING THE OPERA...True, the game is instructive and fun; Nonetheless, it stands in marked contrast to this game, which was played during the US Championship between 2 GRANDMASTERS |
|
Jul-07-10
 |
| pawn to QB4: I'm well aware of the circumstances of both games, morfishine. The relative abilities of Morphy and Fischer is not the point at issue. The question is, is this game overhyped sac-sac-mate or an incredibly complex all time classic? |
|
| Jul-07-10 |
| Petrosianic: I remember a UK game magazine in the late 90's that did an article on the 100 greatest games of all time. Their entry for Warcraft 2 was interesting. They put it at about 85th place, after having put it at #1 a couple of years earlier. Their write-up on it explained that they had played at their offices non-stop until they were sick to death of it, and then decided that it wasn't that great after all. They were NOT kidding or trying to be deliberately ironic. I'd suggest that the same syndrome applies to these games. Any sense of ennui or oh-brother-not-again that we feel when seeing them comes only from the fact that we've seen them so many times. They are not overhyped, simply over-exposed. |
|
| Jul-07-10 |
| micartouse: I wonder if this game was an inspiration (if only subconsciously) to Kasparov while playing Kasparov vs Ulf Andersson, 1981. They both have the theme of a double fianchetto and pawn sacrifice. |
|
| Jul-07-10 |
| morfishine: <pawn to QB4>The question is, is this game overhyped sac-sac-mate or an incredibly complex all time classic? One can't narrow this game down to those 2 categories (overhyped sac-sac mate or "all time classic"). Neither category clearly defines what happened. Byrne's opening was poor to say the least. Nonetheless, he had numerous drawing opportunities. Instead of being hypnotized by the discussion of this-rook or that-rook or the "wrong-rook", why not analyze 14.Bb2? 14.Bb2 seems to hold in all lines. While this game was a mess [from the white perspective], one must admire Black's ingenuity for capitalizing on the situation. |
|
| Jul-07-10 |
| Petrosianic: Numerous? There's one bad move in the game by White: 14. Rfd1. And it's a move that looks for all the world to be harmless. Yeah, 14. Bb2 is good, since, like 14. Rad1 it doesn't weaken f2. The point is that nobody would imagine that that was a critical weakness, and some didn't see it even after the game was over. The game may be rocket science but the explanation about why it's a classic is not. |
|
| Jul-08-10 |
| morfishine: <Petrosianic> Point taken and thank you. I think Byrne's development was poor, especially coming from the white-side. 14.Rfd1 is obviously a "blooper" but it goes deeper than writing it off as a case of the "wrong-rook". Byrne didn't have to move a rook to improve his position (improve meaning holding the draw)...All in all, I think Fischer's brilliancy over Donald Byrne was more exciting and instructive [also in that game, Fischer took advantage of white's poor development]...I'm surprised it wasn't included in his book |
|
| Jul-16-10 |
| Damianx: But hey it didn,t look that bad that you would think that after move 11 i,m beat Fisher starts the whole process with 12 E5 |
|
Jul-27-10
 |
| FSR: <morfishine> Fischer explains at the beginning of "My 60 Memorable Games" that it doesn't include games that were in his earlier (1958) book. Donald Byrne-Fischer was in the earlier book, unfortunately. |
|
| Jul-27-10 |
| Petrosianic: It is a shame, considering that that book didn't have nearly as wide a circulation as My 60 Memorable did. I saw it years back, but I don't think I have a copy anywhere. It also makes the title of this book a bit misleading (It's <My 60 Memorable Games>, not <My 60 Memorable Games Since 1959>). When you consider some of the fairly unremarkable games, that are included, like Fischer-Sherwin and Fischer-Steinmeyer, you start to wish that that's the book that <My 61 Memorable Games> had been. Simply add in that game, complete with notes from the original book as Game 1 (or Game 0, to avoid renumbering all the others). |
|
Jul-28-10
|
| FSR: The older book is lame. It's mostly just a collection of some of Fischer's games, with hardly any notes (although D. Byrne-Fischer is annotated). I heard John Watson remark on a radio show once that a book like that couldn't be published today. |
|
Jul-28-10
 |
| TheFocus: Actually, it consisted of the Donald Byrne game, the US Championship games 1957-58 (all annotated by Fischer) and the unannotated games from Portoroz. Not a remarkable book at all.
Fischer only annotated about 120 of his tournament and match games altogether. Out of over 800, that is not too many at all. |
|
| Jul-28-10 |
| Petrosianic: <and the unannotated games from Portoroz> Well, wait a minute. I thought the rationale for excluding the Donald Byrne game from My 60 Memorable Games was that it had been published in The Games of Bobby Fischer. But there are Portoroz games in My 60 Memorable Games (vs. Petrosian and Larsen, for example). So why duplicate those games, but not the Byrne game? |
|
Jul-28-10
|
| TheFocus: Because he didn't annotate them in the first book, whereas he did annotate the Byrne game. |
|
| Jul-28-10 |
| Petrosianic: I can see why he wouldn't want to write a whole new set of notes for a game that already had notes. But was this a legal decision, based on him not having the rights to reprint his old notes in a new book without permission from the original publisher, or something like that? Or was it just a desire to avoid duplication? |
|
Jul-29-10
|
| TheFocus: He printed the notes in Chess Life first. To reprint them in a second book would not have violated any copyright laws. He already had copyright, not the publisher. |
|
| Aug-04-10 |
| Glenn E: how can you copyright art anyway? Isn't it meant to be shared. Who really wants to create a masterpiece and hide it from everyone else. |
|
| Aug-04-10 |
| Petrosianic: Artists don't want to hide their work, they simply want to be fairly paid for the work they put into it. If they aren't, they won't be able to produce it in the first place, and will go work in a ball bearing plant somewhere. |
|
Aug-04-10
|
| TheFocus: Chess isn't considered art, but your annotations can be copy-righted. I can use someone else's annotations as long as I credit them with it. <Glenn E>< how can you copyright art anyway? Isn't it meant to be shared. Who really wants to create a masterpiece and hide it from everyone else.> <Glenn> I don't know what fairy-tale world you live in, all art is copy-righted also. This keeps someone from taking an artist's painting and then reproducing it on calendars or postcards. An artist paints or creates art for the money. I can't believe you really asked that question. |
|
| Aug-08-10 |
| Grantchamp: May this game be call fischer's immortal. All hail fischer. |
|
| Aug-10-10 |
| sevenseaman: The situation reported by Sneaky in his starting comment about GM Rossilimo's comments is interesting. I wonder if it is a mere anecdotal construction or actual recorded history. I am amazed at the number of immortal, near perfect games that have happened. It looks something akin to injuryless fights on WWF where they warn you not to try the stunts at home. A great game, nonetheless. |
|
| Aug-10-10 |
| Petrosianic: Well, if there's an award for Best Play By The Loser In a Minature, Byrne would be a strong contender. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Annotations by 
sac: 15...Nxf2
