< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·
|Sep-21-12|| ||Petrosianic: Forgetting Tal is like expecting the Spanish Inquisition. It's just not done.|
|Nov-22-12|| ||Conrad93: |
click for larger view
I'm not going to bother going through 14 pages, but was 15.e5 dxe5 16.Nd7 Qg4 17.Kh8 mentioned?
click for larger view
|Nov-22-12|| ||Conrad93: It seems like when it comes to the opening I'm better than Fischer.|
|Nov-22-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: <brankat: <RookFile> <He was willing to take the risk of getting crushed to create murky positions against Fischer>
I believe I read Geller's comment, or maybe it was some other GM, saying that that was the only way to play against Fischer. Where his crystal clear logic could not quite find the way.>|
The comment is to be found in "the Application of Chess Theory" where Efim has a second section devoted to his wins against the World Champions he met. He wrote:
<...it was clear to me that the vulnerable point of the American Grandmaster was in double-edged, "hanging", irrational positions.">
|Nov-22-12|| ||RookFile: Right, it's all relative, of course. The goal is to make the game into a coin flip. No guarantees, Fischer might win anyway. Whatever the result, it's better than playing some boring defense and going into an ending a pawn down against him.|
|Nov-22-12|| ||morfishine: I read somewhere that Geller had the best lifetime record, of any GM, vs Fischer. Its one of those quirks thats attributed to Geller's unpredictable style: One day he lays on a blistering attack that leaves the spectators (much less his opponent) breathless; The next day, he's barricaded, defending 'Petrosian-like', yet ekes out a win; or he'll steer the opening into a seemingly benign set-up, only to explode the position just as his opponent is falling asleep. Its this chameleon-like quality that made him so formidable: "Excellent at everything, but not the best at anything"...except perhaps openings|
But even best opening play will only get you so far
So what gives?
Why wasn't he ever World Champion? Probably because he lacked that burning, fanatical desire to be champion. Fischer would've found in Geller a very difficult opponent to beat in a match, but he would've triumphed. How? He would've willed it
|Nov-22-12|| ||dumbgai: <Conrad93: It seems like when it comes to the opening I'm better than Fischer.>|
I sure hope that's a joke.
|Nov-22-12|| ||Everett: Geller of course was a great player, but his great record vs WCs did not seem to be an influence in his two matches vs Spassky in '65 and '68. |
And why did Spassky win those matches handily? Perhaps because Spassky was even more stable and more comfortable in nearly any kind of position, and Bondarevsky was a perfect trainer to smooth out Spassky's poor work habits.
Truth is, to become champ requires perfect timing. Geller and Korchnoi always had somebody better than them at some point.
|Nov-22-12|| ||qqdos: <Conrad> your 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 (I presume you meant) Nd7 17.Qg4 line was tried out in Jovcic vs Radojcic, 1969 when 17...b4?? 18.Rxf7!! was played and white won. 17...Kh8 was better.|
|Nov-22-12|| ||perfidious: <Everett> As you say, it was never on the cards for either Geller or Korchnoi to take that final step.|
In 1953, Geller finished in the middle of the table as Smyslov won the right to challenge Botvinnik in convincing fashion, then scored 9.5/18 at Amsterdam 1956 to share third with everyone in sight. Curacao was, of course, Geller's best result with a share of second. By the next cycle, Spassky was too strong for Geller, or indeed anyone but Iron Tigran himself.
At this time, Spassky indeed had greater psychological stability, a quality I have long believed Geller lacked at crucial moments.
Korchnoi was a gritty player and a tough nut to crack. After a promising start at Curacao with 5/7 in the first cycle, he came undone and thereafter was never a factor. Spassky was his superior in the 1968 final, and by the time Korchnoi hit his stride, Karpov was too much for him, though the margins in the '74 final and 1978 title match were the odd game, as Karpov had a three-game lead late before grimly prevailing in the end. By 1981, Korchnoi had blown out and was outclassed in his final challenge at the top.
|Nov-28-12|| ||qqdos: In a book My 61 Memorable Games, whose origins seem to be in considerable doubt, see this link http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... - "Bobby" himself appears to have commented on this game, with revised analysis of his saving move 20.Qf4!!
He gives this line as having "some real punch to it": 20...cxb2 21. Rh5! Nf6! 22. Rh6!! Rxf7 23. Bxf7 Be4 24. Bb3 (here DrMal [Aug-31-11] prefers 24. Rh3! d5 25. Rd2 Bf8 26. Rg3 h6 27. Rb3 Qe7 28. Bh5 a5! as Black's strongest defence) 24... d5 25. Bxf6! Bxc2+! 26. Bxc2 Qxf4 27 Rxh7+ Kg8 and White can't quite set up the windmill, so 28. Rxg7+ Kh8 29. Rh7+ Kg8 30.Bxe7 . Either way it looks like White is winning!|
|Nov-28-12|| ||RookFile: Personally, I think Keres was stronger than Korchnoi. Both great players, of course.|
|Nov-28-12|| ||perfidious: <qqdos> Probably have not looked at MSMG in twenty years or so, but didn't Fischer give 20.Qf4 there?|
|Nov-29-12|| ||qqdos: <perfidious> Yes. He gave some analysis then, but omitted to consider the critical move 21...Nf6! He, if it is truly Bobby which I am inclined to believe, has now (i.e. in the book in question) corrected his analysis - although still leaving us with a slight doubt over his suggested 24.Bb3, which may or may not be weaker than 24.Rh3!|
|Dec-17-12|| ||leka: Fischer found 20.queenf4! 2 hours an analysis after the game but is there a win after 20.queenf4 knight d2! fischer and the computers thinks that 20..cxb2? is the best.Put your computers running after 20..knight d2! search 30 moves deep .is there a win after 20.knight d2|
|Dec-17-12|| ||leka: Fischer was a genius but the chess era 1962 to 1972 was the weakest of all time history.The computers solved all fischer famous moves a seconds.Against larsen rook e5! gligoric rookf6! benkö rookf6! byrne bishop e6! only move computers have to think is against minic knight e5!.Fischer beat a weak Spassky 17 wins 11 losess.|
|Dec-17-12|| ||leka: Sorry an error Fischer 17 wins 10 losess against a weak Spassky.I do not like the 17 years old Fischer a loss in 1960 against Spassky.The chess era 1962 to 1972 was a weak one.The blunder makers like Taimanov Hort Portisch and so on.Zukertort made 7 move mate attack against Blackbourne in 1883.Chigorin 10 move a mate attack against Alapin.Chigorin learn to play chess a very late at age 18 years old.Same was Akiba Rubinstein learn to play at age 18 years.And play very good chess an amazing!!!!! Todays over 2700 elo rating players do not see 6 moves ahead they play weaker chess than Zukertort and Chigorin!!!!|
|Dec-17-12|| ||qqdos: <leka> 20.Qf4! Nd2+? 21.Rxd2 cxd2 23.c3! Qc5 (otherwise 24.Bxg7+ with mate imminent) 24.Kc2 Qe5 25.Rxe5 - there is no way to deflect mate and save the Black Queen. I don't think it needs 30 moves deep.|
|Dec-17-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: If you are interested, I have annotated this game ... the link is given earlier.|
|Dec-17-12|| ||perfidious: <leka> Oh, yes.
Guess fish like that there Petrosian, Spassky (y'know, them two that played fer the world title twice), Keres and Tal jes' couldn't play a lick.
|Dec-18-12|| ||LIFE Master AJ: Simply ridiculous. Yes, Fischer was a genius. However, Spassky, Petrosian, Tal, Botvinnik ... they were all worthy champions. |
And - as I remember things - the Vegas odds-makers had Spassky as a huge favorite in 1972 ... Fischer (prior to then) had never beaten Spassky. (FACT!!!)
And Spassky was also a gentleman. I feel quite sure if Spassky had stood his ground and refused to play game #3 in a PING-PONG ROOM, (he origianlly had said that he would not play under such conditions); then Fischer would have probably run off and stuck his head back in the sand, never to be heard from again.
|Dec-18-12|| ||EdZelli: Leka wrote:'The chess era 1962 to 1972 was a weak one.'|
Oh please !! Creativity was the best in that era. Boris, Tigran, Bobby, Tal, Geller, Keres, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Sammy... were all active and fantastic players. They all had a unique style of their own unlike now.
You need to take the time to re-visit
the games from that era.
|Dec-19-12|| ||RookFile: Right. Just a list of players you didn't mention is impressive:|
Larsen, Najdorf, Polugaevsky, Korchnoi, Stein, Bronstein, etc.
If there was a golden age of chess, the time from 1955 to 1972 was it.
|Jan-11-13|| ||leka: I do count Sammy Reshevsky Mikhail Botvinnik Paul Keres M.Najdorf as players from 1960s they were the older generation.There were from 1962 to 1972 players like Fischer Spassky Tal Leonid Stein Portisch.Petrosian was his best 1961-63. Fischer was the world number one from 1966 to 1972 straight years|
|Jan-11-13|| ||leka: Sorry i do not count players Botvinnik Reshevsky Paul Keres M.Nafdorf as 1960s players.They were the older generation|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·