< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-06-06|| ||IMlday: 5.c3 may not be best since after 5.d4 e6 6.d3 the path to b3 (after xe6) is open. See Ivanchuk vs P Nikolic, 2004
A curiousity: the database of the position shows a 64
year gap between Pillsbury in 1899 and Fischer in 1963.|
|Jan-06-06|| ||KingG: I can't believe Evans took so long to resign after 27.Bxh6.|
|Jan-06-06|| ||offramp: He couldn't believe he was being beaten by such a schmo.|
|Jan-06-06|| ||KingG: lol. I think the opening might have had more to do with it than the opponent. Apparently, Evans said afterwards that this game put chess back 100 years(or something along those lines). He clearly had no respect for the King's Gambit. What an idiot. ;-)|
|Jan-06-06|| ||refutor: <this game put chess back 100 years>|
what a great quote!
|Jan-06-06|| ||cpryob123: White still should of focused on Larry Evan's King, instead of pawns in front of his own king. fisscher needs to attack,|
|Apr-18-06|| ||something1234: Looking at this game in Bobby Fischer Rediscovered (Andy Soltis. In it fischer gives the line black would equalize dxe5 11. dxe5 Nd7 12. Ne4 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Qxe5 14. Bd2 Qd5! saying black would equalize. If i was given the position after that line i would take white as winning, first i would exchange queens then take the g pawn. Almost all of blacks pawns look weak the only things black has is a couple of open files and the e4 outpost, but what can he aim at.|
|Jun-01-06|| ||madlydeeply: It seems coutnerintuitive to open up lines in front of your own exposed king (17 Nxf4, 20 Nxh5) is this a common white strategy in the king's gambit? pick off black's forward pawns and weather the storm? Also instead of 22 Nf4 I would have made a strong point of f6 with Nf6 followed by Ngh5 possibly trading B for knight...so the retreat seems counterintuitive as well, then Evans puts his rook on g4 exposing it to a discovered attack from the Bishop...well thats the kings gambit for ya! Why did Evans move 20...Rg8? I would think he'd want to trade rooks on h1, removing white's defensive piece and drawing the king to h1 so the other rook can enter with check on h8...so he puts the rook on g8 so it cabooses his own pawn which can't open any lines?? Arright I say that 20 ...Rg8 is a STOOPID move...its King's gambit Larry! Mix things up! So Evans sacs a piece opening the efile with f6...I think Evans was already glassy eyed and feeling sorry for himself...or else this is like that awesome Cooney-Foreman fight where Foreman beat Cooney who, oh yeah, was Foreman's promoter at the time....maybe Evans bet against himself in this game!!|
|Jun-01-06|| ||guidomiguel: <madlydeeply> black could not leave his rook on g5, the white knight would move and take a pawn with a discovered attack on the rook and the knight attacks the queen, if knight takes knight, bishop takes rook pinning the queen to the rook... rg8 might of been the last move in a bad idea to develop the kings knight on h6 but as I said, the rook could not stay|
|Jun-01-06|| ||Everett: 3...Qh4+ isn't considered the best response, is it? I don't think Evans new his theory here.|
|Jan-31-07|| ||Jack Kerouac: Jack Kerouac was here!|
|Jul-23-07|| ||piroflip: does mummy know your playing on your PC Jack?|
|Jul-23-07|| ||RookFile: I've been reading over some of the comments in this thread, and do not agree with them. It seems to me that Larry Evans got an excellent position out of the opening, and had the advantage. Later, he misplayed his advantage, and lost the game. That happens all the time, of course.|
For example, with the thematic 16....f3, black could have exposed white's king some more.
On move 17, black might have tried 17..... Qd7, with the idea of Ne7 and Ng6.
Just because Evans lost this game, doesn't mean we should overlook the fact that he got a fine game out of the opening.
|Nov-04-07|| ||kingscrusher: Rookfile: I think White was clearly better even if 16..f3 had been played:-|
click for larger view
WHite has a great pawn wedge in the center and much more pressure on the K-side as a result. Black is just bound to end up losing control of key squares on the K-side.
|Mar-26-08|| ||Resignation Trap: Position after 12.Ne2:
click for larger view
Here Evans played 12...Nb4 and Fischer, annotating this game in the January 1964 <Chess Life> wrote;
<12...f6 loses to 13.Qf5 Bg7 14.exf6 Bxf6 15.Bxf4! gxf4 16.Nxf4 with a winning attack. It is important to repel white's queen fromn its present diagonal.>
Here is the position with White's "winning attack", according to Fischer's analysis:
click for larger view
Black to play.
I'm cynical about this alleged "winning attack" by White.
Let's try 16...Qf8 here. If 17.Re1+ Ne7 18.Nh5 Bxd4! 19.Nxd4 Qxf5+ 20.Nxf5 0-0! and Black stays a piece ahead. Or if 18.Ne6 Qf7 19.Re1 Ne7 and it looks like Black can tolerate this attack. I've taken a look at some other lines, but in these, Black survives/wins due to the fact that White's King is on the open f-file.
Can anybody, with or without computer analysis, find a way to improve White's play?
|Apr-19-08|| ||FSR: Dirty trick by Fischer. In Evans' American Chess Quarterly two years before, Fischer had written his famous "A Bust to the King's Gambit" article, in which he stated unequivocally, "In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force." American Chess Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Summer 1961), p. 4. Of course, he neglected to analyze 3.Bc4 . . . .|
|Apr-19-08|| ||zev22407: To resignation trap
In your line after 16)..Q-f8 white plays 17)N-e6 Q-f7 and now 18)Re1 maintaining the pressure
|Apr-23-09|| ||HeMateMe: What do Shredder and Rybka say about the main lines of the KIngs Gambit? Can white get an edge?|
|Nov-23-09|| ||FSR: Evans was no fish. This is the first game Fischer ever won against him, and one of only two. Their other four games were drawn: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...|
|Nov-23-09|| ||Benzol: <FSR> How about Fischer & Evans playing on the same side. See an earler post of mine <Having seen <Interbond>'s earlier post about the Weberg game in 1970 I was wondering if many people know about a tandem simul given by Fischer and Evans in New York in 1960. One of their games was against a player named Gersch. You'd think that two grandmasters working together would have no troubles downing the opposition, but witness the following :
New York 1960
White: Robert J Fischer & Larry M Evans
Black: L. Gersch
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.Nf3 c6 6.e3 Qa5 7.Nd2 Bb4 8.Qc2 Ne4 9.Ndxe4 dxe4 10.Bf4 O-O 11.Be2 e5 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.O-O Bxc3 14.bxc3 Bf5 15.Qb3 b6 16.Rfd1 Rfd8 17.Rd4 Nd3 18.Bg3 c5 19.Rd5Be6 20.f3 Bxd5 21.cxd5 c4 22.Qxc4 Qxd5 23.Qxd5 Rxd5 24.fxe4 R5d8 25.e5 Rac8 26.Rd1 Rxc3 27.Bh4 Rd7 28.Be1 Rc1 29.Rxc1 Nxc1 30.Bc4 Rc7 31.Bd5 Nd3 32.Bd2 Rc2 33.e6 Rxd2 34.e7 Rd1# 0-1.> Too bad they lost.
|Nov-23-09|| ||FSR: Tandem simuls are actually harder to give than regular simuls, because each of the simul-givers has to figure out his partner's thought processes without consulting him. It's disorienting coming to the board, seeing a position you haven't seen before, and trying to figure out how your partner intended to meet the move your opponent has just played.|
|Nov-23-09|| ||xqdashi: Resignation Trap,
After 17.Re1+ Ne7, 18.Kf2 looks interesting.
18...Bxd4+ doesn't work for Black because 19. Nxd4 Qxf5 20.Nxf5 not only regains the piece but also wins the e7 N.
At the same time
18...Bg7? leads to troubles for black after 19. Rxe7+ Kxe7 (Qxe7 Re1 pins) 20.Re1+ Kd6 (Kd8 Ne6+) 21. Re6+ Kc7 (Kd7 Rf6+) 22. Qg5 with threat of Re7+ winning a piece. Now if 22...Re8? then white has at least Rxe8 Qxe8 Qxg7+. If 22..Rd8 then 23. Re7+ Rd7 24.Ne6+ Kc8 25.Nxf8 Bxf8 26.Rxd7
But if not 18...Bg7, then what? Re6 is threatened ( with threat of Rxf6) and followed by Rhe1.
This may not be all sound (no engines used here) but it seems to me white has much better than the feeble lines presented as refutation of Fischer's commentary.
|Apr-21-12|| ||rilkefan: Per Fischer per the above, <12...f6 loses to 13.Qf5 Bg7 14.exf6 Bxf6 15.Bxf4! gxf4 16.Nxf4 with a winning attack.>|
Stockfish says that 16...Qf7 is better than -2 for black at a depth of 29 (3 Gnodes), with main line 17.Nh5 Qg6 18.Re1+ Kd8 19.Qh3 Kc7.
It says black was at a clear disadvantage (+0.3-0.4) until 17...Qh4 instead of 17...Kb8.
It prefers 11.Qb3 to 11.Qd3 by perhaps half a pawn, and 10...dxe5 11.h4 e4 with great complexity and approximate equality.
|Nov-27-12|| ||Wyatt Gwyon: The way Fischer gradually coordinates his pieces is incredible.|
|Aug-07-14|| ||maxi: I agree with <RookFile>'s comments about this game. IMO Fischer's game is OK but nothing special. But this does raise an interesting question. What happened with Black's (Evans') game? Why did he collapse so abruptly?|
I went over the game and then checked my ideas with Houdini Pro in a high-end computer. The result was basically the same as one can conclude from simply studying the game.
As far as I can tell Black is OK most of the game. The turning point is Fischer's fine 15.h4, a move that weakens Black's Pawns. Black begins to steer off course with 17...Qxh. About this time it was necessary to play f6 in order to open lines against the White King and weaken the powerful e5 Pawn. This move f6 also allows the manoeuvre for Black Ng8-h6-f7.
As people have mentioned before here and elsewhere 24...Rg8 is a blunder by Evans that makes it impossible to retrieve the Knight from h6 and therefore loses it. Finally, as has been also noticed before, 32.Nf5 is a lot stronger than 32.Rf6. I have seen other examples of this in Fischer's games. When faced with two options to win, one straightforward and foolproof and another, stronger but complicated, he goes for the simpler choice. (I am pretty sure he does not miss either one of them.) Capablanca used to say that the strongest move is the one that forces resignation the fastest. In this case Fischer's choice basically forces resignation right away, as there are no complexities that would give Black any hope.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·