< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-18-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 16...Qb8 what's the point?|
|Aug-28-09|| ||WhiteRook48: or why does he even play Qd6 to begin with?|
|Nov-11-10|| ||talisman: can i get a little ANNOTATION!!!!|
|Nov-12-10|| ||jmi: <talisman: can i get a little ANNOTATION!!!!>|
1.Nf3 White wins
|May-01-11|| ||kia0708: Queen + 2 Rooks
Queen + 2 Rooks
this is far too volatile for me :-)
|Nov-11-11|| ||Eric Farley: People say that Fischer once called Botvinnik a "glorified coffee-house player." Maybe it was because of games like this one. What a boring player, and kind of yellow-livered too. He sat passively and did almost nothing the whole game except move his rooks or king to and fro on the last rank. And to place his queen on a8 for no apparent reason!|
|Nov-11-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Which people said that, Eric? Do you have a reference? A young Fischer once called Lasker a coffee-house player. You haven't really picked the best game to demonstrate Botvinnik's chess. You picked a game in which Botvinnik was below par as if it sums him up. Pick a game when he crushes Tal, or anyone else for that matter, and call him "boring and yellow-livered" then. Superficial call, mate.|
|Nov-11-11|| ||pawn to QB4: Botvinnik vs Portisch, 1968, the boring and yellow-livered one perks up a bit.|
|Nov-12-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Must have been something in the flask.|
|Nov-15-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: I suppose you have no reference for your Fischer quotation regarding Botvinnik, Eric Farley?|
|Nov-15-11|| ||brankat: <Eric Farley> <M.D.Wilson> |
Fischer once referred to Dr.Lasker as a "coffee-house player", adding: "just because the man was a champion for 27 years doesn't mean he was a strong player." A typical Fischer. I think he later changed his mind.
On the other hand he did respect Botvinnik, although he didn't have Botvinnik on his "of all times" list. Which, btw, Fischer used to revise every few months. Fischer actually stated that it was Botvinnik who "took superficiality out of the game."
|Nov-15-11|| ||brankat: Btw, according to CG.com database the overall score Botvinnik-Tal is a tie:|
+12 -12 =20.
Of course, Botvinnik was 25 years older.
|Nov-15-11|| ||bronkenstein: Botvinnik is underappreciated mostly due to political reasons and his not-so-attractive style (time distance can also help). I believe that Karpov`s populariy suffered a bit for same reasons.|
But he had good faith compared to Spassky (majority , and great one I`m afraid , of people will not remember him by his impressive results in 60s , but rather by something else) , Smyslov or lessay Larsen ( such a player ... most often referred to as `0-6`).
|Nov-15-11|| ||brankat: <bronkenstein> Right. Spassky's phenomenal streak between Amsterdam 1964 to winning the title in 1969 is far more than what Fischer did in 1970-2 period. |
The same goes for Tal, 1957-61. Botvinnik 1934-1948. Dr.Lasker 1894-1901. Alekhine 1927-1934. Karpov 1973-1999. Kasparov 1983-2000. Probably Steinitz, too.
|Nov-15-11|| ||bronkenstein: Speaking of hype vs historical perspective , I bet that we would see some very strange permutations in popular top 5s and top 10s if we could somehow change the places of , lessay, Alekhine and Kasparov in time , or make Fischer Russian + Karpov American.|
It reminds me a bit of all those Persons and Singers `of the millennium` we had only a decade ago. There was also a pool amongst historians @ that time , they voted <Genghis Khan> for the (I will paraphrase by memory) most influential person of the millennium , based on his impact on later European culture , politics and military organisation .
PS I didn`t read the source , but rather the short article that went `WTH Genghis ??` mode. I believe that many would react that way . And speaking of Genghis , Botvinnik somehow comes to mind ...
PPS I just discovered that WT*F is scrambled while WTH is not , usefull to know =)
|Nov-15-11|| ||brankat: <bronkenstein> Yes, WTH is polite enough.|
The "millennium poll" (not pool :-)) we'd had here voted Johannes Guttenberg (spelling?) the most influential person of the previous 1 thousand years.
<or make Fischer Russian + Karpov American.>
Karpov would be a light year ahead of all humanity. =)
|Nov-15-11|| ||bronkenstein: <Johannes Guttenberg (spelling?)> don`t worry , I never grammarpoliced anyone - otherwise I would have to arrest myself for life (or two).|
|Aug-25-12|| ||lost in space: Johannes Gutenberg
His real name was Gensfleisch
|Dec-10-13|| ||zydeco: Does white have anything better than a repetition after 40....Ng4? If 41.Bxh7+ Rxh7 42.Rxg4+ but black just plays 41.....Kf8 and 42.Bg6 fails to 42....Nxh6 43.Rxh6 Rf6 44.Rh8+ Rg8 45.Qh6+ Qg7|
A few nuances (that took me awhile to spot):
If 47....Rg7 48.Qd8+ Qf8 49.Rh8+
If 59....Qg5+ 60.f4 Qxg3 61.Qd3+
If 72....Qb2+ 73.Kg6 and either 73.....Qxf2 or 73.....Qc2+ is answered by 74.Qf5+.
|Dec-10-13|| ||beatgiant: <zydeco>
Interesting. But what do you see after 40...Ng4 <41. Rxh7> instead? Then 41...Rxh7 42. Bxh7+ Rxh7 43. Rxg4+ with a pawn up and the better position.
|Dec-11-13|| ||zydeco: <beat giant> That answers it.|
|Jan-10-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: <brankat: <bronkenstein> Right. Spassky's phenomenal streak between Amsterdam 1964 to winning the title in 1969 is <<<far>>> more than what Fischer did in 1970-2 period.|
The same goes for Tal, 1957-61. Botvinnik 1934-1948. Dr.Lasker 1894-1901. Alekhine 1927-1934. Karpov 1973-1999. Kasparov 1983-2000. Probably Steinitz, too.>
Hogwash. Fischer had twenty straight wins against WC opposition, and complete domination of WC cycle as never before or since. Look it up.
Too bad you have to write such stuff - why not try to be objective?
|Mar-26-15|| ||thegoodanarchist: Do you think Kasparov was more than familiar with this game? Here is Gary's first ever win versus Karpov:|
Kasparov vs Karpov, 1984
|Dec-22-16|| ||ChessHigherCat: I finally figured out why Tal didn't play 44. Qxe6: QxQ, 45. RxQ, Nf4!, 46. Re8+ Kf7..and white loses the rook or the bishop.|
|Jul-28-17|| ||Yossi Kreinin: Tal's book on the championship match lists Ref7 as the 27th move instead of Rg7 which appears here (Tal gave Botvinnik's move an exclamation mark, the position is diagrammed, and Tal comments that the move threatens the white pawn on d4, which makes sense if it protects the pawn on f5 but probably not if the move is Rg7; so I'm pretty sure the typo is here and not in the book.)|
I'm a newbie and don't know how to submit suggestions to correct game scores, so just posting this here.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·