< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
|Sep-02-11|| ||JoergWalter: <maxi: <JoergWalter> The c5 and d4 Pawns are missing on the wall board.>|
I did not steal them. Seriously, they were removed on purpose by the director (visibility etc.)
|Sep-02-11|| ||DrMAL: <RandomVisitor> No way in hell LMAO. The difference between "many hours" and one second is a factor of around 10,000! In the last five years computers and engines have improved by around a factor of 10 combined. So perhaps 10 seconds for an engine in 2006, it took me about a minute being as 15...Bxd6 was so obvious.|
Bronstein himself admitted he did not bother to stop and think here, "I trusted, in spite of my preliminary calculations, that my opponent had found a clear-cut mating finish after 15...Bxd6, and I avoided it in favor of something worse, which I still regret today." This was all he would have had to do, this sac was EASY to refute. http://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/...
|Sep-02-11|| ||DrMAL: Now the very strong move that was not played. As I stated before if black does manage to amazingly find each surviving move, the sequence is:|
15.Qxe2 Nf8 16.Rad1 Be6! 17.Ne5 f6 18.d5 Bc8! 19.Bb3 fxe5 20.d6+ Be6 21.d7 Kh8! 22.dxe8Q Qxe8 23.Bd5 Qg6! and from here there are probably multiple ways for white to win (e.g., also 24.Qe3 and maybe even 24.Rd2 or 24.Bxb7). With help from Houdini to make sure black plays his best, here is one example:
24.Qc4 Re8 25.Kh1 a5 26.Rde1 Bh4 27.Re3 Kh7 28.Bxe6 Nxe6 29.g3 Be7 30.Qd5 Ng5 31.Rfe1 Nxe4 32.Rxe4 Rd8 33.Qxb7 Bxc5 34.Rxe5 Bd4 35.Re6 Qf5 36.Qg2 c5 37.b3 Rf8 38.R6e4 Qg6 39.Rf4 Rd8 40.Qb7 Bc3 41. Re2 Qd3 42.Qe4+ Qxe4+ 43.Rfxe4 Bd4 44.Re8 Rd6 45.Ra8 Bc3 46.h4 Kg6 47.Kg2
click for larger view
From here, black really does not have anything constructive to do, just sit and wait to see how white will win. I will use the move Houdini gives as marginally best among several equivalent ones, white makes progress in a similar fashion no matter what anyway:
47...Rd1 48.g4 Rd4 49.Kf3 Rd1 50.Re6+ Kf7 51.Rc6 Rd3+ 52.Ke2 Rd2+ 53.Ke3 Rd7! 54.h5! Ke7 55.Rac8
click for larger view
At this point black is totally lost, I leave it to the reader to enjoy the win of their choice.
Back to the question of this game that Soltis misled so many on: Given the choice between playing a solid, probably winning move versus a sac that is easily refuted for a draw which would you choose? To me, the answer to this was and still is, OBVIOUS. This game got a lot of drama attached to it, even was prized. Like the "Evergreen Game" Anderssen vs Dufresne, 1852 where white also had a good game but played a sac that should have drawn (his opponent made a blunder later on, causing a lucky win), this game is similar so I saw the connection between the two.
Spassky played a brilliant game indeed up to move 15, he had a big advantage that, as I showed, was actually winning. If he had played the best move, he probably would have won by force. Instead he gambled on a sac that should have drawn. This does NOT exemplify great chess it exemplies great luck.
|Sep-02-11|| ||JoergWalter: Repost:
< JoergWalter: Bronstein, 200 OPEN GAMES:
<It was the devil who prompted me to reply 1...P-K4??. The fact that Spassky, like Spielmann in the last century, very much likes to play the King's Gambit had gone completely out of my head. And when it was too late to take my first move back, I remembered that about 100 years ago Anderssen, playing Neumann, had tried to construct a defense around ...B-Q3 and ...N-K2. This idea appealed to me, but I overdid things and spent a pointless tempo on the mysterious ...P-KR3. Spassky's strong reply, 9 N-K4 (this is why Black's knight should be on KB3) immediately gave White a decisive advantage. There was nothing to be done, but with 14...P-K7 Black set White the tricky question: 15 R-B2 or 15 N-Q6? I had no doubt at all that the clear 15 R-B2 would follow, since the more elegant choice, 15 K-Q6, allowed the Black king in certain variations to escape the impending trouble. When Spassky still in fact plunged into the whirlpool of complications I committed my final error: I trusted, in spite of my preliminary calculations, that my opponent had found a clear-cut mating finish after 15...BxN 16 Q-R7+ K-B1 17 PxB PxR=Q+ 18 RxQ PxP 19 Q-R8+ K-K2 20 R-K1+ N-K4 21 QxNP, and I avoided it in favour of something worse, which I still regret today. However, to everyone his due. The blue bird soaring in the clouds, that is, the beauty prize, was won in this way by the future world champion.> >
|Sep-02-11|| ||DrMAL: <JoergWalter> Yes, Kronsteen errm Bronstein was a good sport about it. I think he realized he was probably lost anyway before the sac. The game had a beautiful finish after his blunder, and Spassky played a brilliant game (up to move 15 where he turned WSOP player) and then after the blunder, cheers.|
|Sep-02-11|| ||Pawn and Two: <DrMal> Thanks for your analysis verifying the missed the winning move, 15.Qxe2!, and for your analysis showing the sacrifice 15.Nd6?, should have only drawn.|
In 2007 I used Fritz 9 to review this game. Considering all the praise that existed for 15.Nd6, I was surprised when Fritz 9 found a win for White with 15.Qxe2, but no win with 15.Nd6.
I posted Fritz's findings on these game pages, but other than comments and analysis from <CharlesSullivan> and <RandomVisitor>, the supposed virtues of 15.Nd6? continued to be praised.
Your analysis and comments will help many on this site to see the actual truth regarding the moves 15.Qxe2!, and 15.Nd6?.
|Sep-02-11|| ||DrMAL: <Jan-21-07 Pawn and Two: <RandomVisitor> Based on Fritz 9's evaluation and analysis, I believe that White is winning in all continuations, after 15.Qxe2!. In previous postings, Fritz provided the following winning line: 15.Qxe2 Nf8 16.Rad1 Be6 17.Ne5 f6 18.d5 Bc8 19.d6 fxe5 20.Bb3+ Ne6 21.dxe7 (3.27) (16 ply). If now, 21...Qxe7, then 22.Qh5.> My apology for not having seen this, once again I re-invented the wheel LOL. Well, it was instructive and hopefully added to dispel the trash Soltis and others spread around, commonplace in chess but this does not make it right or even useful. The reason I became a paying member of this site is because it contains a LOT of really great analysis from players who care about the truth despite all previously misleading hype. My intent was certainly not to wail on Spassky I think he was one of the best players who ever lived (and had a great personality as well), someone to truly admire. He probably felt some sort of weirdness accepting his prize knowing he gambled, I would have too. Because of this gamble I don't regard this game as one of his better ones, his play was normally exemplary of absolute top level chess. Thanx for pointing out your analysis from nearly five years ago, cheers.|
|Sep-03-11|| ||maxi: <K9Empress> I checked up the game you mention, A Filipowicz vs A Tarnowski, 1962, and you are right, it is a little gem. The Queen sacrifice is very nice and there is no defense to it. It was also possible to win with 14.g5, but the Queeen sacrifice is nicer, at least to me, who am not a computer.|
It is clear that White was trying at all times to get the h1 Rook into action along the h-file. Thus he avoided castling. Interesting.
|Sep-15-11|| ||drleper: <DrMAL> No offence against you was intended. I agree the sac leads to a draw, it's just that when I looked at it with the computer, the line was extremely long before it looked obvious to me that it was actually a draw, so I just assumed you would have checked with an engine. You probably looked at it more than I did, no probs.|
|Nov-29-11|| ||Penguincw: 21.b3 was the simply the beginning of the end. |
click for larger view
|Jan-06-12|| ||King Death: < DrMAL: ...Spassky played a brilliant game (up to move 15 where he turned WSOP player)...>|
It's great having gamblers at my table because they'll crash and burn sometime down the road, hopefully after I take their stack. We even see some of those kamikaze players at the World Series.
|Feb-08-12|| ||drukenknight: in looking over this game again I tend to agree w/ Dr.Mal that objectively the sack does not work and it is confounding to work out the best lines as above analysis of Qxe6 etc shows. I think the reason is that in fact less than good moves were played prior to the sack by both sides and this seems to really mess up a game. So as I look at it, it seems that 6...00 not so great and really 7...Nd7 is bad. If that is the case that on whites 8th move he has superior position he should play as bold as possible with 8 Ng5. I have looked at a few minutes and looks pretty strong...|
|Feb-28-12|| ||drukenknight: another comment, I have only recently been seeing the Abbazia: 3....d5, is no one taking back with the Q; 4...Qxd5? So I dont have to study that?|
|Mar-11-12|| ||kingscrusher: From Russia with love featured this game:
|Aug-11-12|| ||Fanques Fair: DrMAL, after 15- Qe2, Nf6 ! , instead of Nf8(?), seems better for black, pracically equalizing, although White has more space. 16- Nxf6+, Bxf6, 17- Qd3 leads to nothing after ...g6, 18- Bb3, Kg7. I don´t see any other forced lines for White here. Please correct me if I´m wrong, thanks !|
|Sep-14-12|| ||Conrad93: Two Titans of the King's Gambit playing against each other.|
|May-09-13|| ||LIFE Master AJ: http://www.ajschess.com/lifemastera...|
My web page on this game ... just did a complete re-do, and also added a video on this game, as well.
|Aug-01-13|| ||BlackFront: <JoergWalter: <maxi: <JoergWalter> The c5 and d4 Pawns are missing on the wall board.>|
I did not steal them. Seriously, they were removed on purpose by the director (visibility etc.)>
According to John B Henderson:
<The only difference between the two games was that, in the Bond movie, there were no pawns on d4 and c5. This remained a mystery for 40 years until it was revealed that the legendary Bond producers, Albert “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, mistakenly believed there to be a copyright on chess games, so they had the pawns removed from the board.
But this proved to be a critical error, because Black could have drawn at the end by perpetual check with 22 ..Ne6! 23 Ng6 Qc5+ 24 Kh1 Qb5! 25 Bc4 Qc6 26 Qf7+ Kh7 27 Qf5 Ng5! forcing 28 Nf8+ and Ng6+.>
|Aug-04-13|| ||maxi: If it is true, that's a very interesting piece of information. If they were going to change something, it would have been better to change something less central to the position.|
|Sep-14-13|| ||MarkFinan: First time ive been through this game, and its brilliant!
I wouldnt have even thought of downloading any Spassky (or Karpov and "similar" players!) games because even though i acknowledge he was a brilliant Grandmaster, and seems a nice guy... there are more exciting players games to go through.
Im way too old to be studying all different variations of chess in the hope i may one day improve to the point I can benefit financially from the game, (or make LM ;) ) so i tend to stick to the more exciting and tactical players games, Morphy, Tal, Fischer, Kaspy, Carlsen, AJ, etc..etc..
So a genuine surprise for me... I enjoyed the game :-)|
|Sep-14-13|| ||Everett: <MarkFinan>
You love Spassky. You just don't know it yet ;-)
<Larsen vs Spassky, 1970>
|Sep-14-13|| ||MarkFinan: Everett.. Thanks for the link mate, im kind of familiar with the game anyway, but ive posted my comment over there :-)|
|Sep-14-13|| ||talisman: <maxi> saw your avatar...looking forward to the (j d salinger) Seymour Glass documementary.|
|Sep-20-13|| ||maxi: <talisman> Hmmmmmm|
|Sep-20-13|| ||talisman: <maxi> he was an entertainer Salinger watched as a kid...bicycle arist of some kind....I think he's mentioned in "Seymour An Introduction".|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·