< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Dec-02-13|| ||chesswar1000: A fisch out of water.|
|Jan-07-14|| ||GumboGambit: Hail to the Viktor!|
|Jan-28-14|| ||MarkFinan: MarkFinan: This is a pretty damn good game of chess. I half understand this move.. I think!? Fischer sacced the g pawn by playing 13.g4? to get some play on the kingside, and also drawing blacks queen over to the queenside so it can't help defend his king. I think that was the idea, although it was a big mistake because that's definitely where things started to go wrong for him..|
click for larger view
And once Qh6 is played here, getting the queen back over the kingside it's completely over. Some nice tactical shots in this game, I like going through Fischer's games when he has the white pieces because he nearly always played for a win.
click for larger view
|Nov-02-15|| ||onam: brankat tell us: <It was Fischer himself who said that he do not understand the way Korchnoi plays.
Hoewer If both like to grab materials, I mean they were materialistic how they do not understand eachother?|
|Nov-02-15|| ||diceman: <leka:
The move 10..a5was a novelty it was not a Korchnoi idea.
Who is behind 10..a5>
Who's behind a5?
...the queens rook of course.
|Nov-02-15|| ||maxi: <onam> The way I see it, they did not have the same style. Korchnoi liked to play for complications with piece play. He loved piece activity even at the cost of placing himself sometimes in danger. Positionally he was a center man, in the Nimzovitch sense of pieces being active towards the center. Fischer was a far more classical player. He loved the way Soviet chess developed, but also Capablanca's and the original Botvinnik´s positional style. With Botvinnik he also believed in unbalancing a position and thus obtaining counterchances, but not in unsound positions. He probably was at his weakest in messy positions. He also was very concerned with an eventual endgame and was very strong in this phase, too. During his last years he surgically avoided unclear positions and became pretty much invincible. Also Fischer was much more of an opening expert than Korchnoi, and that is a big advantage.|
Both were great players, man!
|Jun-12-16|| ||The Boomerang: "t's a shame they did'nt meet in the candidates in '70 .. Fischer would have put your BS to bed .."|
And its a shame Fischer was too afraid of Karpov you know the one who had a 14-2 record against Spassky.
They could have met if it wansnt for all his ridiculous requests.
Why did Fischer only dominate 1 candidates cycle? If he was the best ever and all?
|Nov-13-16|| ||Medusaz: <The Boomerang>
Your argument, along with ELO are just statistics. Statistics aren't everything, I think the universe is comprobation of that.|
His games and ideas are what put him up on top of most players, and the small fact he was 120 ELO above the second ranked player (since ELO is just a measure of difference within the playing environment - you can go to ICC and check out the computer's that are rated 3500 only get to 2200 - 2400 because the rest of the computers are just as good).
There's also the fact that the current top players respect him and look up to him. Magnus himself has Bobby right up there and is his dream opponent. I don't think Magnus being as strong as he is would be out for an easy match since he has that most of the time already. It's obvious they see something in him we, normal players do not.
|Jan-11-17|| ||Ironmanth: Tremendous game! Not certain if this is in "My 60 Memorable Games"?! In any event, what an attacking masterpiece, IMHO. Victor, and Bobby, left us so much beauty and power in their respective creations on the 64 squares. I am grateful for their immense contributions. Thanks for this game, people!|
|Jan-11-17|| ||Petrosianic: Um, it's actually the only game in which Fischer fell into a book trap in the opening. It's not in M60MG, no.|
|Jan-11-17|| ||Howard: Yes, 13.g4? was Fischer's mistake. As Mednis later put it, "after that, the rest of the game is a slaughter."|
|Jan-11-17|| ||parisattack: Fischer had a bit of fondness for g4 and ...g5. Nice discussion of same in Agur's Bobby Fischer: His Approach to Chess.|
|Jan-12-17|| ||RookFile: 33... Qxg3 has a sense of humor to it.|
|Jan-12-17|| ||maxi: <RookFile: 33... Qxg3 has a sense of humor to it.> Remarkable. For the second time in the same game Korchnoi surprises Fischer offering material.|
|Mar-15-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <maxi: <RookFile: 33... Qxg3 has a sense of humor to it.> Remarkable. For the second time in the same game Korchnoi surprises Fischer offering material.>|
It's pretty generous considering it just barely wins: 33. ...Qg3 34. Nxg3 a2 35. Nf5 a1Q 36. Qxa1 Bxa1 37. Nxd6 and black just has a pawn advantage, although it's a passer.
|Mar-15-17|| ||RookFile: Don't forget about the rook on f8.|
|Mar-15-17|| ||offramp: <ChessHigherCat:...It's pretty generous considering it just barely wins: 33. ...Qg3 34. Nxg3 a2 35. Nf5 a1Q 36. Qxa1 Bxa1 37. Nxd6 and black just has a pawn advantage, although it's a passer.>|
If you look closely you'll see that it is not a passer. It is already passed.
|Mar-15-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <RoofFile:> That's exactly what I did, sorry I didn't say anything"|
<offramp>: Is there really some technical difference between a "passer" ( "potentially passed pawn") vs. a "passed pawn" or are you just taking the pass out of me?
|Mar-16-17|| ||maxi: In <ChessHigherCat> line 33. ...Qg3 34. Nxg3 a2 35. Nf5 a1Q 36. Qxa1 Bxa1 37. Nxd6, it should be mentioned that playing 35...Ra8 first before the promotion is even stronger, as it keeps the rook and both extra pawns.|
|Mar-16-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <maxi: In <ChessHigherCat> line 33. ...Qg3 34. Nxg3 a2 35. Nf5 a1Q 36. Qxa1 Bxa1 37. Nxd6, it should be mentioned that playing 35...Ra8 first before the promotion is even stronger, as it keeps the rook and both extra pawns.>|
I'm sure you're right but I just calculated it in my head and completely spaced out the rook, as <RookFile> rightly surmised. My comment wasn't totally worthless, though, because it shows that Korchnoi could have dramatically tossed the rook into the wastepaper basket before playing 33....Qg3 and he would still have won (although I doubt that Bobby would have appreciated the beauty of his gesture).
|Mar-17-17|| ||offramp: <ChessHigherCat>, the only passer I know is <Passer gongonensis>, the parrot-billed sparrow!|
|Mar-17-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: <offramp: <ChessHigherCat>, the only passer I know is <Passer gongonensis>, the parrot-billed sparrow!>|
Is that related to the specious endangered species Passus goinggoinggonguenensis?
|Mar-18-17|| ||tamar: Using offramp's exact terminology, a passer is only a passer for one move as it passes the opponent's pawn. |
Then it transforms into a passed pawn for the rest of its life.
Passer-bys become passe'
|Mar-18-17|| ||ughaibu: A passed pawn might cease to be passed following a capture by a pawn of the opponent, and thus it might again be a passer.|
|Jun-06-17|| ||I Like Fish: er...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·