< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-03-03|| ||sangfroid: if white played 12 Bd3 then if blacks plays 12... f5, then white will take the rook, now if Nc6 Qxf8#. I just think white should've won, and the only reason he lost was from that tactical shot white let black do.|
So the question is where did black go wrong? Ba6? Yeah mabie, I think it's when he didn't put it back to Bb7
|Jul-03-03|| ||drunknight II: sangfroid: i am not sure I am following your line, you say 12 Bd3 f5 13 Qxa8 Nc6 how is Qxf8 mate? |
I'll be back later to set this up
|Jul-03-03|| ||sangfroid: Ohh, i ment, 12 Ba3 |
|Jul-03-03|| ||drukenknight: 12 Ba3 is the move that was played. Well what are you saying that he missed a mate? |
Anyhow I'm going 12 Bd3 f5 13 Qh4 now what? 13...c5 is typical for the nimzo indian but that could be met by Ba3, maybe 13...Nc6?
|May-22-05|| ||ArturoRivera: I liked Ba3 from whites point, first of all is that it "develops" (dont know how many people are going to argue the mediocrity of the diagonal in which is posted) with a tempo, and it goes to the natural idea of impeding c5, or at least try to put some restrains to it, beacause actually in that position, to imped completely c5 is imposible.|
A question, what happens if 28.-R4e2?
|May-22-05|| ||RookFile: Ok. This is a confusing game, certainly way over my head. Let
me just copy in Kasparov's observations:
1) It turns out that Ba3 is not a
good idea in this specific type of
game, because in a lot of lines black
wants to play ...Qa4, which now
become doubly strong if it also hits
2) Hubner gives 12. Bd3 f5 13. Qe2 Nc6 14. Bf4 Rfe8 15. 0-0 Na5 16. Be5 Qc6 17. c5 Bxd3 18. Qxd3 bxc5 19. Rab1 as equal, black's extra pawn
not being important.
3) Kasparov says if 28. R4e2 Fischer
would have played 28.... f3 29. gxf3
Nd2 or 29. Re4 fxg2 with the idea
What people remember about this game
is the way Fischer offered the queen
for 2 rooks. But another remarkable
thing about this was the way the very
natural Be5 was exploited by Fischer:
normally, that is a great post for
white, but in this specific situation,
Fischer made it the object of his
|Jun-30-05|| ||aw1988: These dogmatic material imbalances mean nothing drukenknight, it honestly depends on the position, which one would not supply with material, but general evaluations, obviously.|
|Jun-30-05|| ||OneArmedScissor: <aw1988>
So true. Play the position not the pieces might be a new phrase...?
I remember watching some video where Kasparov was analyzing one of his games vs. Karpov. Basically, Kasparov sacrafices some stuff, only to find when the smoke clears his pieces are on better squares and have more potential. Later he said something like, "Have your pieces on better squares and in a better position outweighs any material imbalances." Something like that.
|Jun-30-05|| ||aw1988: Right, or "Any king is worth a material sacrifice.".|
|Feb-24-06|| ||diction: "It is staggering to what extent Fischer surpassed one of the world´s leading grandmasters in depth of evaluation of a non-standard position." kasparov|
|Feb-25-06|| ||RodSerling: It seems odd that a GM with Portisch's experience could lose the exchange with such a small amount of material on the board.|
Is this game in Fischer's 60 games book?
|Feb-25-06|| ||ughaibu: Look at the game collections listed below.|
|Jan-11-08|| ||D4n: Where can you find Portisch's notes?|
|Jan-11-08|| ||plang: <Where can you find Portisch's notes?>|
In the Dover tournament book edited by Isaac Kashdan. Great book with numerous analysis by the participants.
|Jan-30-08|| ||HeMateMe: I think white loses because (a), the bishop is bad, blocked in by same-color pawns, and (b) his rooks are not developed and operating yet. If LP could have found a place for the Bishop before stacking the rooks, he might have won or drawn.|
This reminds of a game in which Anand beat Kasparov, Anand had a Queen and Kasparov had three pieces. Kaspy's three pieces couldn't coordinate will with his pawn structure, and Anand munched. I think the Portisch game is in M60MG.
|Feb-03-08|| ||whiteshark: "In round 11, he [Fischer] faced the “little Botvinnik”, Hungarian grandmaster and many-time Candidate Lajos Portisch. Portisch, like Fischer, was always very well-prepared in his openings, but wasn’t as good at improvisation. That cost him, as the non-standard position that arose from Fischer’s Nimzo-Indian led to a situation where Portisch followed the “rules” and got into trouble. Generally speaking, two rooks are stronger than a queen, and that’s the material balance Portisch eagerly pursued straight out of the opening. What counts, however, is how well one can coordinate one’s forces, and Fischer’s assessment proved superior, and he went on to win a strategic masterpiece."|
|Jun-09-09|| ||Eyal: Position after 19.Bc1:
click for larger view
<19...c5!> This move opens up 3 main options:
- If White allows an exchange of pawns on d4, Black can quickly activate the 2 vs. 1 majority on the Q-side.
- 20.d5 e5 with strong control of the center.
- And the most interesting option, which happened in the game – 20.dxc5 followed by an attempt to establish a blockade on e5, where the seemingly "powerful" bishop on that square ends by turning into a target of attack.
|Jul-01-09|| ||Ulhumbrus: Instead of 21 Bf4, 21 Rd1 occupies the open d file.
After 21 Bf4 and 23 Be5 the bishop occupies a central post, but it threatens nothing and obstructs the White Rooks on the e file, and the bishop lacks squares to leave the e5 square because Fischer covers its flight squares, eg by the move 23...Qd8 denying the square c7 to the bishop ( as well as occupying the d file) and by the move 24...Kf7! denying the last remaining flight square f6 to the bishop, and so compelling it to stay on the e5 square, obstructing White's Rooks which have been doubled on the e file.
This suggests keeping the bishop back and activating the Rooks instead, if that is the only alternative.
|Mar-21-11|| ||newzild: <Eyal> I found your post interesting because as I clicked through this game, which I remember from Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games, the move that struck me the most was <19...c5>. Normally when I have a queen against two rooks I try to keep the position closed, and certainly to avoid the opening of files. I was a little surprised to see Fischer allow the opening of the b-file.|
|Mar-21-11|| ||arnaud1959: 25.-f4 is another great move. The idea is tu push f3 supported by the queen on d5 and if white plays f3 the N lands on e3.26.-a6 was played to prevent Bb8 with tempo I think.|
|Aug-06-11|| ||Rama: No matter how you look at it, white is bad after move 15. If 16. Bb4 e5!, and white is still on his way to being strangled. |
Fischer seems very consciously to play in the style of Nimzovich. The Nc4 is perfect as it is protected from frontal attack and restricts white's Bishop.
The moves h6, g5 and Qd8 systematically take squares away from the Be5. 24. ... Kd7, is a good waiting move but look! 25. h3 ..., threatens to give the Bishop a square and so 25. ... f4!, eliminates that.
26. ... a6, is an in-your-face waiting move that sends white a message. He knows action is required and tries 27. Re4 ..., and 28. h4 ..., but it is too late.
As always a restriction/blockade game ends with a tactical flourish, here 28. ... Ne3!
Bobby just played a wonderful game, single-minded with not a wasted move, very Karpov-ian in that way.
|Aug-29-12|| ||TheFocus: This is game 53 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>.|
|Oct-20-12|| ||notyetagm: Game Collection: Interference/Line-closing: blocking GUARD line|
|Oct-20-12|| ||HeMateMe: Fischer must have breathed a contented *sigh* each time he saw the schedule with Portisch as his next opponent.|
|Feb-08-13|| ||perfidious: <HeMateMe: Fischer must have breathed a contented *sigh* each time he saw the schedule with Portisch as his next opponent.>|
This was a well-played game by Fischer, but in their last two encounters (Portisch vs Fischer, 1970) and (Portisch vs Fischer, 1970), he came in for a hard time and was fortunate to draw in each case.
One rather suspects that Fischer took a less sanguine view than your own on facing Portisch.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·