< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
|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.|
|Oct-05-13|| ||jackmandoo: 19. RF6 made me cry when I first played through this at boarding school when I was 16. Once I realized the reasoning behind the move I got goosebumps and shed tears. It was quite a moment.|
|Jan-04-14|| ||MJCB: Move 19 Rf6 is reminiscent of move 23 Rxf6 in the game Mikenas vs N Lebedev
4th Georgian Championship 1941 · Queen's Gambit Declined: Modern Variation (D53) · 1-0 (I do not know how to set hyperlinks) except that Fischer takes a tempo to sac a rook while Mikenas took a Bishop with his rook. As for Jackmandoo and many other I am sure, this made a deep impression on me.|
|Jan-04-14|| ||diceman: <HeMateMe:
But, you didn't address the question of innovation--did he substantially *change* the way chess was played, or did he just play it better, than anyone of his generation?>
I guess <TheFocus:> said it best:
Do some of you even read your posts before submitting them, or do you just randomly hit keys?>
|Mar-09-14|| ||Eduardo Bermudez: Happy birthday dear Bobby !|
|Apr-24-14|| ||Mating Net: I often wondered how a move such as 19.Rf6!! even gets considered. |
I propose that one of Fischer's most famous moves was the result of Fischer learning from one his own mistakes.
Consider the following position from a game played one year previously:
Fischer vs J H Donner, 1962
25 White to move Fischer vs Donner 1962
click for larger view
After sacrificing his Knight, if Fischer had played the zwischenschach 25.Qg3+ it would have lead to the following moves: 25…Kh7 26.h5! and the resulting position would have been as follows:
click for larger view
This would have guaranteed the immobility of the Black f pawn and prevented …f5 due to Qg6#. My silicon friend evaluates the position as dead even at 0.00. I would definitely take White because he can bring the Rooks into the attack starting with Rd4 while the Black Queen is in exhile on a7. (This is not my analysis Karsten Mueller gave the variation on his tactics DVD)
I think Fischer realized that there is tremendous value in freezing the Black f pawn in such positions and that lesson enabled him to conjure up Rf6!! against Benko.
|Apr-24-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Mating Net>: <I often wondered how a move such as 19.Rf6!! even gets considered.>|
This is a hard question to answer without making it sound as though the move is obvious. It's not an obvious move by any means, but it gets considered because it's based on sound positional blocking, deflection and restraint principles.
I once saw a position in a Reinfeld book, where a long series of exchanges led to a position where White had a Rook on f1, Black's king on f8, pawn on f7, and at the end of the combination, white wins a bishop on e6, which is not protected because the pawn on f7 is pinned. That situation existed on the board at the <beginning> of the combination, but was not important because other pieces were in the way. A GM would see the <potential> pin and look for a sequence of moves to exploit it. This is very important, to not only look for weaknesses, but for things that might be a problem later.
So, in this position, the thing that catches the GM's attention is, of course, the Bishop on d3 and Queen on h5, both bearing down on that pawn on h7. But how do you take advantage of it? If white plays e5, then black blocks with f5.
So at this point, the GM starts looking for a way that he might prevent f5. Once you've gotten that far, a move like Rf6 becomes something that might be considered.
|May-23-14|| ||MJCB: Fischer Move 19 f6 reminded me of the game V Mikenas vs N Lebedev, 1941 with the position:
click for larger view
White to play: 23 xf6!
Players on both game take a tempo to block the opponent position. But I have to say Fischer move is even more beautiful as he sacs his rook on an empty square (while Mikenas took a Bishop with his rook - when already a rook down though)
It seems that great chess thinkers think alike but common mortals like me are still left with the privilege of being fascinated by such combinations like children by magic.
|Jun-22-14|| ||Ulhumbrus: <Mating Net: I often wondered how a move such as 19.Rf6!! even gets considered. > |
Fischer has indicated the explanation in his book <My 60 memorable games> (and Horowitz and Battel have also given some indication in their book <The best in chess>): The move 18 Rf6 is a zwischenzug which is intended to improve on the more direct 19 e5. For on 19 e5 Black can play 19...f5! which is what Benko intended and which according to Horowitz's book sets up a perfect defence.
The sacrificial thrust 19 Rf6!! delays Black's pawn advance ...f5 by two moves at the cost of a tempo and a rook, so we can say that overall it delays Black's pawn advance ...f5 by one move at the cost of a rook.
On 19...Bxf6 20 e5 Black lacks a vital tempo to play both 20..Bg7 and 21...f5 before White mates him by 21 Qh7 mate.
This tempo is therefore worth more than an entire army to Black, and so certainly worth giving up a rook to gain.
The resource remains of course brilliant for all that
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·