< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|Oct-29-12|| ||thomastonk: <ughaibu> Here Smyslov's queen is a hunted one: Smyslov vs Benko, 1952, similar to Taimanov's queen here: Taimanov vs E Eliskases, 1960 and Ivkov's queen here: Ivkov vs M Johansson Sr, 1966.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||ughaibu: Thanks. I'd say those are all interesting games, lots of action and good fun. And I haven't seen any of them before.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||Joshka: In updated notes from 2007, Fischer responds to 13...Ne8 "More active than 13...Nd7 14. 0-0-0 Nc5
15. Rhf1 (see Line M) 15...Nxd3+ 16. Rxd3 and White prepares for Nd5 and Nf6+ since Black has no time for ...c6 (Ne2!). Faced with what is to come, 13...c5 14. 0-0-0 a6 would have held out a while longer."|
"M. From M60MG I had 15. Kb1 here originally. The big difference is now White won't be in check with 15...Nxd3 and after 16. Rxd3 there's no added support of the Rook in the f-file. Black has 16...f5! 17. exf5 Rxf5 and White's prospects for an aggressive attack against an enclosed King (as in the actual game) are completely erased."
|Oct-29-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Oh right, Fischer's "updated notes from 2007."|
|Oct-29-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<Poulsen>
The grand old man of British chess, the late Harry Golombek, wrote an essay for the old complete collection of Fischer's games which made a similar claim.
For old Harry, Capablanca had a big influence on Fischer -- their games have an apparent simplicity about them -- with the major difference that Fischer wouldn't even dream of taking a draw if there was any play left in the position.
The other obvious difference is in Bobby's openings: although limited, at least until 1970 on (Ruy Lopez with white; the Sicilian Najdorf and King's Indian with black), he played ultra modern theory and extremely sharp lines at that. The limited lines meant Fischer knew his systems inside out.
|Oct-29-12|| ||TheFocus: <Fischer's "updated notes from 2007.">|
|Oct-29-12|| ||HeMateMe: Didn't the updated M60MG ruin the book by deleting some of the original notes, to "improve" it somehow?|
|Oct-29-12|| ||TheFocus: <HeMateMe> I don't know. Seems like the only copies in existence belong to Ed Trice, <IM Day> and <Joshka>.|
|Oct-29-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I believe HeMateMe is referring to the updated edition of "60" which John Nunn edited, and which Fischer said had many errors. Joshka seems to be referring to the mythical "61."|
|Oct-29-12|| ||ughaibu: It's not really "mythical", is it? After all, such a book exists, apparently, but it is no more the work of Fischer than my kibitzes on this site are. So, Joshka, bear in mind the authority that that gives me. |
|Oct-29-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I stand corrected. Bad choice of words. I could have said "legendary" or if I wanted to be harsher, "fraudulent."|
|Oct-29-12|| ||harrylime: <HeMateMe> Fischer has openings named after him.. Why is that ? |
Fischer influenced the way GM's approached the openings in terms of prep and over the board moves..
Fischer changed the way chessplayers at the top played chess fullstop...
To say Fischer did'nt innovate but just played 'good' chess is missing his impact upon chess completely..
I agree re Steinitz and Morphy but not so sure on Tal, much as I love him.
|Oct-29-12|| ||HeMateMe: It may be more accurate to say that Bronstein, a little before Tal, was the real innovator. His chess was certainly different from Botvinnik's group, a very tactical style, hard to follow in many games. Irrational moves. I don't know of anyone else who got so close to the top, with such a style.|
Not Alekhine--he usually attacked from a superior position. Bronstein's hard to follow openings seemed to come from nowhere.
|Oct-30-12|| ||harrylime: ^^^
Regarding innovation and change considering Fischer, you're missing something pretty big.
|Oct-30-12|| ||HeMateMe: Gosh, Harry we live for your intellectual prowess. Please Enlighten us...|
|Oct-30-12|| ||TheFocus: <harry> is the only poster here that has just one to say.|
Over and over and over again.
|Oct-30-12|| ||TheFocus: Oh, yeah, and <harry> also has that trademark <LOL!> thing going on.|
|Oct-30-12|| ||perfidious: <TheFocus> Indeed, that <LOL> which transcends all.|
|Oct-30-12|| ||TheFocus: In <harry>'s case, he is a student of Transcendental Irritation.|
|Oct-30-12|| ||TheFocus: Oops, forgot to add LOL!|
|Dec-18-12|| ||leka: My 32 mgz computer solved this 19.rook f6!! 1 minutes 50 seconds.2,5 giga herz computer is 1000 times faster it solved this under second.Fischer was a genius but the chess era from 1962 to 1972 was the weakest in the history.The computers today solved all Fischer famous moves under seconds thinking time like against Byrne bishop e6! Larsen rook e5! Gligoric rook f6! only Fischer move computer thinks is against Minic knight e5!|
|Dec-18-12|| ||perfidious: <leka> You've an unusual MO-instead of coming to game pages with combinative ideas and telling us how quickly you solved them, you regale us with tales of how fast your engine was in doing the job.|
Sheer genius, that engine of yours!
|Mar-05-13|| ||HAPERSAUD: <perfidious> and that is why my friend, chess has gone to hell in a hand basket, everyone thinks they know everything even when parroting an engine|
|Mar-05-13|| ||RookFile: I think 16. Qg4 may be the hardest move to find in this game. What would the rest of us do - something like Rad1, Rf2, or Nd5 instead?|
|Mar-05-13|| ||perfidious: <HAPERSAUD> Afraid so.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·