|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jul-03-07 |
| Peter Nemenyi: <Fischer would crack with very bad play in the sharpest positions> No doubt Geller was onto something here, but to word it this way, as though Fischer did badly in sharp positions or was afraid of them, is thoroughly misleading. (Bobby as Petrosian's brother in spirit--certainly a new concept!) Mednis was more convincing when he claimed that RJF was ill at ease in obscure positions, mutually dangerous but without any strategic theme to guide his thinking. I'd suggest that all three of the losses in MSMG fall into this category. |
 |
Jul-03-07
 |
| whiteshark: This was Fischer's 5th defeat against Geller. |
|
| Jul-03-07 |
| 2Towers: Geller knows Fischer's style very well. Amazing. Spassky knows Geller's style. Amazing too. |
|
| Oct-13-07 |
| xeroxmachine: <RookFile: <mrjoshherman: I used to remember, but have forgotten. Why 8. Bb3? I feel like there's some big trouble that white gets into if he doesn't make this move.> At some point, you're going to need to play Bb3, because if not, black can play ...Nxe4 white answers Nxe4 and then d5. You might be able to wait another move, but Fisher got it out of the way right away.> And also (not the case in this game) but if black had played a6 sometime. then he could follow up with b5 threatening the bishop and then b6 threatening the knight and which will leave the e4-pawn unguarded. Nxe4! |
|
Nov-10-07
 |
| ketchuplover: Why wouldn't everyone try to play like Geller against Fischer? |
|
| Nov-10-07 |
| Petrosianic: <as though Fischer did badly in sharp positions or was afraid of them, is thoroughly misleading.> Not sharp positions, exactly, but <unclear> positions, is where Fischer was weaker. He was very good in sharp, clear positions. Fischer had no problem playing sharply, but he'd rather take a pawn and weather a storm, rather than go for a wild, unclear attack. |
|
| Nov-10-07 |
| RookFile: Well, as with a lot of things, there is the usual amount of overstatement here. For example, there are a host of games where Fischer played this wild unclear stuff in the Modern Benoni or the poisoned pawn sicilian, and just blew strong opponents right off the board. In the end, as Alekhine said, chess is the master of us all, and nobody plays it perfectly. The best chance you had against Fischer was with this murky stuff, but that by no means suggests he wasn't an excellent player in these situations as well. |
|
| Nov-10-07 |
| Petrosianic: For some examples of the kinds of wild, unclear positions where Fischer wasn't quite at his best, in addition to this game, have a look at these others: Fischer vs C Munoz, 1960
Fischer vs Geller, 1967
Fischer vs Larsen, 1970
|
|
| Jan-26-08 |
| xrt999: The end position of this game is so complex and beautiful. I could spend 2 weeks looking at it, and not begin to understand the depth and reach of all the pieces that Grandmaster Geller could comprehend after 15 seconds of scrutiny. The guy who played white who resigned after 23 moves. I heard he died. |
|
| Jan-30-08 |
| tud: <AtKing Good analysis ! jyske: I like your 22.Rh6! too> Check who found Rh6 in the first pages of the kibitz and thanks |
|
| Feb-15-08 |
| xrt999: Is this the flawed masterpiece, or is the other game Fischer lost against Geller in '67 in 20 something moves the flawed masterpiece? I can never remember. |
|
| Feb-15-08 |
| Atking: <tud: <AtKing Good analysis ! jyske: I like your 22.Rh6! too> Check who found Rh6 in the first pages of the kibitz and thanks> Ok no problem, I like Jyske analysis and I like your 22.Rh6 <tud>. |
|
Dec-13-08
 |
| Eyal: Some additional analysis of the (winning?) 20.Qf4 line: http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/fil... (see also http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/pos...). |
|
| Dec-14-08 |
| Vishy but not Anand: I think Fischer's mistakes were 19. Qf1 a long way maneuver and 20. a3?? due to weakens his support at b3. I prefer the following continuation with continuous flow of attack... 19. bxc3 Qa6 (or Qb7)
20. Rdf1 (his rook is no use at d1 so better use it for a threat Rxf6 then Rxf6 again, followed by Bxf6 mate) Nxe5?
21. Qg4! (threatening mate at g7)Rg8
22. fxg8+ Rxg8
23. Rf7 and mate soon! |
|
| Dec-14-08 |
| Vishy but not Anand: < Vishy but not Anand: I think Fischer's mistakes were 19. Qf1 a long way maneuver and 20. a3?? due to weakens his support at b3.
I prefer the following continuation with continuous flow of attack... 19. bxc3 Qa6 (or Qb7)
20. Rdf1 (his rook is no use at d1 so better use it for a threat Rxf6 then Rxf6 again, followed by Bxf6 mate) Nxe5? 21. Qg4! (threatening mate at g7)Rg8
22. fxg8+ Rxg8
23. Rf7 and mate soon!>
Not 23. Rf7, I am too fast to make an analysis, it can be answered by ...Ng5. Better continuation is
23. Rh4! (threatening Rxh7 followed by Qh5 mate) Nf6
24. Rxf6 Bxh6
25. Rxh7 Kxh7
26. Qh5 mate |
|
| Jan-14-09 |
| Paraconti: <IMDONE4> <Fischer would crack with very bad play in the sharpest positions> A classic example of an unverified sweeping statement. |
|
| Jan-14-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: <IMDONE4: according to Geller, Fischer was a tremendous player who you simply could not match in traditional positions and open games, with clean positional play. There were two main weaknesses Geller noted: Fischer's commonality in opening repotoire (he almost always played e4 and the najdorf), and the fact that Fischer would crack with very bad play in the sharpest positions. Geller was able to exploit both, and become one of the very few players in history to have a plus score vs Fischer> An exaggeration, but not completely untrue. Fischer preferred clean, logical positions. Guys like Geller, Korchnoi and Spassky were probably better in 'messier', double-edged positions, but Fischer wasn't far behind them and won many such games in great style. |
|
Jan-14-09
 |
| Open Defence: <An exaggeration, but not completely untrue> probably because his play in clear positions was near flawless so the weaknesses he did have however small were sensational to his peers? |
|
| Jan-14-09 |
| M.D. Wilson: Yes, especially someone in Geller's position. |
|
Jan-16-09
 |
| notyetagm: 20 ?
click for larger view20 a2-a3?
click for larger viewKasparov: “White’s instinctive desire to drive away the queen turns into a fatal weakening of the b3-square.” A great example to put in my Game Collection: Every time you push a pawn it weakens squares. |
|
Jan-16-09
|
| notyetagm: A simply superb analysis of this incredibly complex game using <RYBKA 3 AQUARIUM> can be found here: http://www.chesscafe.com/chessok/ch.... |
|
Jan-17-09
 |
| Calli: <notyetagm> Thanks, some very penetrating analysis. I see that OMGP achieved it usual level of accuracy. ;=> |
|
| Apr-16-09 |
| gnummer: 20.Qf4 cxb2 21.Rh5
21...Nc3+
22.Kxb2 Nxd1+
23.Kc1 Qxd4
24.Qxd4 Nb2
25.Qg4 h6
26.Qg6 Nd3+
27.cxd3 Be4
28.dxe4 Rc8+
29.Kd1 Rxf7
30.Bxf7 Rc1+
31.Kxc1 Bf8
32.Rxh6+ gxh6
33.Qg8++
or 21...Nf6
22.Rh6 Be4
23.Rxf6 a5
24.Re6 d5
25.Rb6 Qa3
26.Rf1 Rd6
27.Qe5 Bf6
28.Rxf6 Rd7
29.Rf3 Rdxf7
30.Rxf7 Bxc2+
31.Bxc2 Qxa2+
32.Kxa2 b1Q+
33.Rxb1 Rxf7
34.Rb8+ Rf8
35.Rxf8++ |
|
Jul-09-09
 |
| TheDestruktor: I don’t know if someone mentioned that before.
Search the database for Fischer’s defeats with 23 moves or less. Besides this one, you will see many simul games; some blitz; one correspondence; one game of dubious origin; one loss to Euwe, when Fischer was 14; and one loss to Unzicker when Fischer was forced to play a ridiculous 12...h5 due to the touch-move rule. So I think that this game should count as the shortest “real” Fischer defeat. |
|
Sep-12-09
 |
| birthtimes: Paranoia is a "regressive expression of the fear of [being] attack[ed]..."--Reuben Fine |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
