|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 14 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-13-05
 | | keypusher: Surely, though, Geller was surprised when Fischer played 6 Bg5 -- I don't think Fischer had ever played it before. Very brave of Geller to then choose Fischer's pet variation. |
|
| Apr-13-05 | | Badmojo: Geller said Fischer played fast until 18. c4, which indicated to him, he was still in his preperation. But, you're right, Geller didn't know what to expect. He said it was the first time he had played this position! on 13. Nd5, he says something to the effect of, "I didn't work out lines beforehand, and of course it was inconceivable to work out all the lines over the board, but I figured those central pawns ought to be good enough to protect my King." he's kind of playing by intuition. |
|
| Jul-31-05 | | euripides: Tal tried out 20 Qc2 shortly afterwards: Tal vs R Bogdanovic, 1967. 20 Bd1 was also suggested. |
|
| Sep-21-05 | | ughaibu: Badmojo: Geller doesn't say anything about "intentionally losing". |
|
Sep-21-05
 | | Eggman: <<Geller said Fischer played fast until 18. c4, which indicated to him, he was still in his preperation.>> Where are these comment's of Geller's taken from?
|
|
| Oct-15-05 | | waddayaplay: <<Eggman>> If that info is correct, I am wondering where Fischer went wrong? Playing this variation as black with good results, and known for his dedicated studies, I wonder what move Fischer didn't foresee. |
|
| Nov-25-05 | | KingG: <Surely, though, Geller was surprised when Fischer played 6 Bg5 -- I don't think Fischer had ever played it before.> I think this was because Geller rarely played the Najdorf, so Fischer might have taken that as a sign that Geller wanted to challenge him in his favourite variation. To quote Kasparov, 'those where the good old days, when to reject a challenge would be seen as not only a sign of weakness, but also of moral defeat'. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | RookFile: This was a 'gambit' by Fischer. Sure,
he could play 6. Bc4. Would that be
a good idea? It would be hard to think of a worse one. He could play 6. Bc4 and even win. Think that Spassky, Geller, Keres, Tal, etc. would study that game at all to help Spassky get ready? LOL.So, I think this is the the reason why
Fischer did not play his favorite weapon,
at at least what Fischer's thoughts were in
1967 when he played this game. ( Earlier
in his career, he played 6. h3 in some games,
because he did not want the chess world to know
his thoughts on 6. Bc4.)
Ironically, when Fischer did play 6. Bc4 in 1972, Spassky was more than ready for it - by all rights, Spassky
should have won that game with Black. |
|
Nov-26-05
| | keypusher: <waddyaplay> I think white underestimated ...dc setting up ...Qd3! Fischer allowed a similar queenside infiltration by Larsen in Santa Monica 1966. <Rook File> Spassky didn't play the Najdorf against Fischer in 1972. On the other hand, Fischer did play Bc4 against Geller in the main-line Sozin in his other loss to him in 1967 (and then annotated it at length in 60MG). It was in this same line that Spassky nearly beat him in 1972. So your explanation for why Fischer played 6 Bg5 in this game doesn't make sense. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | hangingenprise: This is one of the few times that Fischer was out played both psychologically and at the chessboard. He rarely played B-G5. Perhaps this game sent him back to the chessboard to work out the intricacy of this variation. |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | RookFile: Keypusher: Actually, Spassky did play
a Sicilian with a6 and b5 in 1972,
and Fischer did play the Bishop to c4.
The minor difference in the black knight's placement was surely something the Russians took into account. They were of course well aware that Fischer's universal weapon against all Sicilians was Bc4. I'm sure that Fischer played Bg5 against Geller's Najdorf for the same reasons that he also played h3 on occasion. By keeping Bc4 against the Sicilian in reserve until the games that really mattered, Fischer did well
against Larsen, a strong opponent on the way to Spassky. |
|
Nov-27-05
| | keypusher: <RookFile> Do you realize that your most recent post contradicts the one before that? Do you care? Or do you just write words at random? |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | RookFile: Have a drink keypusher. You'll do better focusing on making your own constructive points rather than worrying about what I'm writing. Suffice it to say, Fischer didn't play 6. Bg5 because he didn't want
his thoughts on 6. Bc4 to be known. Even in the other Geller game, where he actually did play 6. Bc4, he played a system with Qe2 and 0-0-0
that he typically did not play - again: he was saving his best weapons for when it truly mattered. |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | alicefujimori: I don't think there is anything to argue about here. Firstly, the only one who knows what Fischer actually thought when we played 6.Bg5 was only Fischer himself. So making guesses and further discussions will not yield an answer that we could definitely say for sure that it is correct. Secondly, I don't see what the fuss is all about when Fischer plays a different move other than 6.Bc4. There is nothing wrong with a GM trying out variations that he haven't played before. Maybe Fischer, like RookFile said, didn't want to give his "secret" on 6.Bc4 away so he decided to play 6.Bg5? Maybe he just wanted to suprise Geller? Or maybe he thought that 6.Bg5 will be effective against Geller?But so what?The truth is...he played 6.Bg5 and got badly beaten by Geller. That's what matters. Besides, there was nothing wrong with Fischer playing 6.Bg5. His opening play in this game was fine. He only made a mistake in move 20, which he should of played 20.Qc2. |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | KingG: Nobody buys the explanation i gave above then? |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | RookFile: I don't consider outplaying Geller
to reach a winning position to be
'badly beaten'. Anybody can make
a mistake, and Fischer did here.
Everybody here who is writing that
Fischer should have played 20. Qc2
is merely echoing comments that Fischer and Geller made immediately
after the game.
Geller was a terrific player, who put
up plus scores against a number of world champions. For one thing, Geller was one of the world's leading
opening experts, whose knowledge of the opening rivalled Fischer's. It takes somebody with ice water in his veins to play this variation against the champion of the variation, and just rely upon his general studies of this opening. Geller was fearless. |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | RookFile: KingG - I do think that Geller threw
down a challenge, and Fischer accepted it, as you say. Although
in a sense, it doesn't really matter.
Whether it's 6. Bc4 or 6. Bg5, you
know a Fischer vs. Geller game is a
going to be a real fight. |
|
Nov-28-05
| | keypusher: <RookFile>
1. This game is a Sicilian Najdorf. Spassky was not likely to play the Najdorf against Fischer in a match, since Fischer was a Najdorf specialist and Spassky wasn't. Therefore, Fischer did not play 6 Bg5 in this game in order to avoid giving Spassky the benefit of his analysis. 2. In the main-line Sozin with Bc4, Fischer tried both Qe2 and 0-0 at different times. (See opening explorer.) Apparently he didn't conclude that 0-0 was his "best weapon" until Larsen beat him in the former line at the interzonal. An interzonal is a pretty important event, wouldn't you agree? Velmirovic later improved on Fischer's treatment of the line, incidentally. Velimirovic vs V Bukal Sr, 1971 3. Fischer played Bc4 twice against Larsen in the Candidates matches (in other words, every chance he got, since neither Taimanov nor Petrosian gave him the opportunity). Do you suppose the Soviets examined those games closely? LOL, as you would say. 4. Spassky improved on Larsen's play and nearly beat Fischer in the Sozin in game 4 at Reykjavik. Then, and only then, Fischer abandoned the line. |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | RookFile: Well, in no particular order, I'll answer these points. First - remember
how things were when Fischer actually
played Larsen in the match. We look
today and see that Fischer won 6 to 0.
But, before the match, there was legitimate doubt as to who the better player was. Anybody who predicted that Larsen would beat Fischer was making a responsible prediction - Larsen had terrific results around this time. So - Fischer benefitted
from saving his Bc4 for Larsen as well.
I think I misspoke, when saying that
Fischer was saving his Bc4 for Spassky. The thought I had was: Fischer was saving his Bc4 for the championship matches leading up to Spassky, and for Spassky himself. With Fischer's Bc4, f4, f5 system,
it's not really significant whether
the black knight goes to d7 or to
c6. It's not as important as what
black is playing as what Fischer was
playing - the whole world had a notion
of his setups, but nevertheless, Fischer wanted to save a few of the
tactical tricks for the world championship cycle.
Was the interzonal game with Larsen
an important event? Every game of
chess with Fischer was an important
event. But, the interzonal wasn't
especially important, it was inconceivable that Fischer wouldn't
finish high enough in the crosstable
to move onto the next stage. That's
all that really mattered.
As you say, Spassky improved upon
Larsen's play. Give Fischer credit
for anticipating this - his opening
play in the Spassky match showed that
Fischer was keenly aware of the problem of 'going to the well too often' against a universal player like Spassky. |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | sitzkrieg: Rookfile; I d say it is important if the knight goes to d7 or c6 as totally different plans are needed. Furthermore it is important for the Name, Najdorf with Bc4 vs Sozin. That is why Keypusher is correct if he sais in 72 Spasski didnt play Najdorf.
I think <KingG>'s explanation is probable, and I believe Geller himself also wrote something like that. <Eggman> About your question, I believe the quote was of "the application of chess theory" by Geller |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | RookFile: Ok. Sitzkrieg. If the black knight
goes to d7, Fischer plays f4 and f5.
Fischer vs J B Bednarski, 1966
On the other hand, if the black knight
goes to c6, Fischer plays. f4 and f5.
Fischer vs Larsen, 1971
Good thing we cleared that up. |
|
Nov-28-05
| | keypusher: <RookFile>
<With Fischer's Bc4, f4, f5 system, it's not really significant whether
the black knight goes to d7 or to
c6.>
What <sitzkrieg> said. <So - Fischer benefitted from saving his Bc4 for Larsen as well.> Fischer never "saved" Bc4 for use against anyone. Quite the contrary. He played Bc4 in the main-line Sicilian every single chance he got in a serious game between the 1950s and the Spassky match. Repertoire Explorer: Robert James Fischer (white) |
|
Nov-28-05
| | keypusher: <Ok. Sitzkrieg. If the black knight
goes to d7, Fischer plays f4 and f5.
Fischer vs J B Bednarski, 1966
On the other hand, if the black knight
goes to c6, Fischer plays. f4 and f5.
Fischer vs Larsen, 1971
Good thing we cleared that up.>
Try again, Rookfile.
Fischer vs Larsen, 1970 |
|
| Nov-28-05 | | RookFile: keypusher - I come from a pre-computer
age, where we did old fashioned stuff
like open chess books and play over
all of Fischer's moves. I know
that you're simply wrong: Fischer
played 6. Be2 and 6. h3 to win some
games. I don't have the time to show
you all these games, but the most
famous example of this would be his
win against Reshevsky. Or maybe his
win against Najdorf, or Boblochan. (spelling).
In fact, if memory serves, Fischer annotated that latter game in My 60 Memorable games. Years later, Nunn
thought he saw a mate in 4 that Fischer missed, so when Nunn wrote
his 'corrected' edition of My 60 Memorable games, he put that in. The only problem with Nunn's analysis was, it involved an illegal move that left white's king in check. The classic book by Wade
and O'Connell on all of Fischer's games makes a brief reference to 6. h3 I believe, noting that Fischer played it for a time to keep the world from knowing his true thoughts on the Najdorf. And, as noted, that Fischer - Larsen
game was one we talked about earlier,
where Fischer deviated from his system. It was the same as playing 6. Bg5 against Geller - he was saving
his true system for his upcoming matches.
|
|
| Nov-28-05 | | KingG: <RookFile> There are many continuations after 6.Bc4. I don't think Fischer needed to save anything in 1967, when he had no idea that he would be competing for the world title anytime soon. The problem is that very few people dared to play the Najdorf against Fischer, so we don't have enough games to test your hypothesis. But i doubt that from here to 1967, he would have avoided playing 6.Bc4 against the Najdorf, to 'save' it for an eventual world title challenge. Also, if the Russians wanted to find out what Fischer's ideas in the 6.Bc4 Najdorf were, wouldn't it make more sense to play that variation against him? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 14 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
