< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
|Aug-24-14|| ||nimh: 1) why so? Being familiar with games of players of the past is a natural part of chess education. The point is to measure actual ability, not inborn talent.|
2) ?? what are you trying to say? But if you're saying that it's more difficult to play accurately after a brilliancy by the oponent, you may have a point.
3) Indeed, if you take a ruler and try to measure the length of a line you just drew on the paper with a pencil, you probably notice they are of completely different material, shape and purpose. :) But it nevertheless does its job, doesn't it?
4) There are objective reasons behind either type of rating inflation. Hence it must be considered as an inevitable and natural phenomenon in rating systems.
Intelligence has risen and that has nothing to do with playing strength. Why contrary?
Einsten may have been the most naturally talented scientist ever, but Don't you think physics has evolved a lot since his death? Someone with Einstein's knowledge and ability would be quite unnoticeable and unknown today.
|Sep-18-14|| ||Travis Bickle: 56. Rb1 Coup de grāce...|
|Mar-24-15|| ||Paraconti: A beautiful win.|
|Mar-24-15|| ||Howard: Timman's book Art of Chess Analysis analyzes this game in depth. So does Kasparov's MGP.|
|Apr-23-15|| ||Petrosianic: I had a discussion about this game with someone a while ago. The other person claimed that Black "blundered" the exchange, I felt that he deliberately sacrificed it for those two passed queenside pawns. What's the general consensus?|
|Apr-23-15|| ||ToTheDeath: It was a deliberate sacrifice. Spassky thought he could hold but Fischer's technique was just too good. Of all the world champions Spassky was the least shy about giving up material "on spec".|
|Apr-23-15|| ||Petrosianic: Was he trying to hold, or trying to rustle up winning chances? It seems like he could have had a reasonable position without the sac.|
|Apr-23-15|| ||Petrosianic: For example, 23...axb5 24. Rxb5, and Black is in no serious trouble, and a probable draw is on the horizon. It looks as though the exchange sacrifice is done with an eye to trying to win.|
On the other hand, Black isn't in trouble for a long time after the exchange sac either.
|Apr-23-15|| ||perfidious: <Everett: <perfidious> all those Magyars have barbarian strength from their time on the steppes, not a bourgeois among 'em.>|
Y'all best not mess with 'em!!
|Apr-24-15|| ||offramp: |
click for larger view
Is anything wrong with 33.Nh6+?
|Apr-24-15|| ||Zonszein: Hello
Perhaps Mr Fischer did not want to give Spassky the possibiity of playing the bishop to g7 in some variations (?)
|Apr-24-15|| ||diceman: <offramp:
Is anything wrong with 33.Nh6+?>
...without a machine it looks ok.
Id guess Fischer wanted to get the rook on the seventh, behind black's knight pawn with check.
...besides, in game 3 Fischer showed black could get an advantage with busted kingside pawns from a knight on the rim. :)
|Apr-24-15|| ||offramp: <diceman>, thanks. I see it now that you point it out. Because the king is on f7 in the game, the white rook gets to the seventh with a gain of tempo. That has been on my mind for some time!|
|Jun-08-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: I find it beautiful to see the ending of the game, after 47.Rexb4.|
Those b-file Rooks have a starring role; being a piece up, Fischer seals the deal!
|Aug-03-15|| ||Howard: Fischer: His Approach to Chess, states that instead of Fischer's sharp 26.Bb3, he should have reversed the moves by playing 26.Qf4, and THEN Bb3.|
|Aug-03-15|| ||diceman: <Howard: Fischer: His Approach to Chess, states that instead of Fischer's sharp 26.Bb3, he should have reversed the moves by playing 26.Qf4, and THEN Bb3.
...with either move black's best seems to be a6xb5.
...so it would probably just transpose into the game.
|Oct-03-15|| ||slater369: 32...Bxe4???|
|Oct-03-15|| ||keypusher: <slater369: 32...Bxe4???>|
Are you saying 32....Bxe4 is a blunder? It isn't. It's not even a mistake. If 32....Kxf7 then 33.Rd7+ wins the bishop. So Spassky decides to grab a pawn with it first.
<leka: My the old 32mgz computer elo rating 2255 played 25 second thinking time better than the poor Spassky this Ruy Lopez Breyer.Spassky played this game about 2000 elo ratinhg level.The poor Spassky!!>
Where do people get this stuff?
|Apr-12-16|| ||Party Animal: The Maestro of The Ruy plays a beautiful endgame!|
|Apr-12-16|| ||Howard: About where was the point of no return, as far as Spassky throwing away the draw for good ?|
|May-18-16|| ||Tiggler: <Howard: About where was the point of no return, as far as Spassky throwing away the draw for good ?>|
Consensus seems to be that 29... Re7 was the losing move, and that 29... Rad8 would have held.
Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 (kibitz #69)
|May-18-16|| ||Petrosianic: <Party Animal: The Maestro of The Ruy plays a beautiful endgame!>|
Every game should have one comments section for comments, and another one for gushing, just to keep them separate.
|May-18-16|| ||Petrosianic: <29... Rad8 would have held.>|
Well, "would have held" is a bit optimistic. The game probably would have continued on an even keel, but it's too early to talk about a final result.
|May-18-16|| ||Petrosianic: Now, if the line did play out <exactly> as zzyw told it (not a sure thing), this resulting position is probably drawn, just because the single Rook can't hold the pawns alone, and White can't attack the Black Kingside without his King's participation.|
The main difference between this and the game line, is that Black gets to swap a pair of Rooks, and the passed pawns are less dangerous as long as White has two Rooks.
click for larger view
|May-18-16|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic:
<Party Animal: The Maestro of The Ruy plays a beautiful endgame!>
Every game should have one comments section for comments, and another one for gushing, just to keep them separate.>
...and one for hate, so <Petrosianic:>
can feel at home.
Calling Fischer's play <beautiful>.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·