chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Robert James Fischer vs Vasil Panov
Skopje (1967), Skopje YUG, rd 6, Aug-13
Caro-Kann Defense: Two Knights Attack (B10)  ·  1-0
ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

explore this opening
find similar games 1,051 more games of Fischer
sac: 28.Nxf6+ PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

Kibitzer's Corner
Sep-30-03  drukenknight: another Fischer/Carokann. This one is from the swinging 60s. No more fuddey duddy openings. THis one is totally groovy man.

How is it supposed to end anyhow?

Oct-27-03  Shadout Mapes: The threat of Rxh6 ends it.
Oct-27-03  Diggitydawg: Hmmm, what does white do if 30...h5 31.g4 Ra1+ 32.Kh2 Ra2 33.QxR QxR?

Or from the variation above, 32.Kg2 Nd5 33.Rxh5 Nf4+ (forking both Rs and K)?

Oct-27-03  Diggitydawg: Is this guy related to Vasily Panov of the Panov-Botvinnik attack fame?
Oct-27-03  Diggitydawg: Ahh, I've rethought this, 30...h5 loses to 31.Qf5.
Oct-27-03  drukenknight: Yeah it may be too late to save black on move 30 dawg, but you might try going back one move or so...
Jan-10-07  Ulhumbrus: The move 28 Nxf6 + suggests thst Fischer's strategy has been to transfer his Rooks to the King side and then to play a sacrifice there. Black is not going to do nothing while White takes time to transfer his Rooks to the King side. As it happens, Black does do something, but it is not enough. The King side is not White's only prospect, a Queen side attack is another. However at some point, the King side attack may yield more. Having seen this game, we can say with the benefit of hindsight that 18 Re4 threatens the pair of moves Qc2 and Rh4, not to mention the quintet of moves Qc2, Rae1, Rh4, Re3 and Rf3, and the sacrifice Nxf6 after Re3. Perhaps Fischer's strategy is not to transfer the Rooks to the King side and play a sacrifice, but rather to play in a way that makes such a transference and sacrifice possible.

Jan-11-07  Cyphelium: <Ulhumbrus> <Perhaps Fischer's strategy is not to transfer the Rooks to the King side and play a sacrifice, but rather to play in a way that makes such a transference and sacrifice possible.>

What's the difference?

Jan-11-07  Ulhumbrus: <Cyphelium> The difference is that if Fischer does not first play so as to make the transference possible, but goes ahead when the transference isn't yet possible, the transference becomes then an unsound attack, and Black may refute it.
Jan-12-07  Cyphelium: <Ulhumbrus> So, in other words 'transfering the rooks needs preparation'.

Strategy is our goal-oriented, long-term plans, right? I don't think you can say that Fischer's strategy was <not to transfer the Rooks to the King side and play a sacrifice, but rather to play in a way that makes such a transference and sacrifice possible> because both these alternatives have the same goal. The strategy is the same even if the realisation of said strategy needs preparation.

Jan-12-07  Ulhumbrus: <Cyphelium> Transferring the Rs and playing to make the transference possible do NOT have the same goal. At the very least, the latter can have an additional aim:to make a Queen side attack possible . Now which of these possibilities materializes depends on Black's choices. If Black concedes more on the Q side, Fischer can use his developed men ( which could be transferred to the King side in other circumstances) to attack the Q side instead.
Jan-15-07  Cyphelium: <Ulhumbrus> <Transferring the Rs and playing to make the transference possible do NOT have the same goal.>

Of course they do, at least in part. You are contradicting yourself, when you next start talking of an 'additional aim'. Additional to what, if they don't share the same goal to start with?

Jan-15-07  Ulhumbrus: < Cyphelium > There is no contradiction, for the additional aim is one resorted to if the opponent chooses a line that makes the second aim better than the first. Playing to make the transference possible has the aim of playing the transference possible if the opponent invites it,BUT ALSO THE AIM OF PLAYING FOR ANOTHER ATTACK IF THE OPPONENT INVITES THE SECOND ATTACK. This flexibility is what makes " playing to make the transferrence possible" different from merely "transferring". Playing to make the transferrence possible plays to make other attacks possible as well, which transferring by itself does not. That is why the aim of the former is not necessarily the same as the aim of the latter. It is like the difference between saying " I will get ready to make possible an attack in the north or in the south depending on your deployment" and " I will attack in the north." Clearly the two do not have the same aim. I seem to have explained the point rather thoroughly. If you still can't understand the difference, say so, and I may attempt to locate the exact point at which you have missed something.
Jan-15-07  Shams: please stop, guys. think of the children.
Jan-16-07  Cyphelium: <Ulhumbrus> Here we go again then:

<There is no contradiction, for the additional aim is one resorted to if the opponent chooses a line that makes the second aim better than the first.>

So, you say that the two strategies do NOT (the choice of capital letters is yours) have the same aim, but then you actually say that they do have the same aim for a while, until you switch aim. There’s the contradiction for you.

<Playing to make the transference possible has the aim of playing the transference possible if the opponent invites it,BUT ALSO THE AIM OF PLAYING FOR ANOTHER ATTACK IF THE OPPONENT INVITES THE SECOND ATTACK.>

Your choice of capital letters here makes me assume (wrongly?) that you think my main problem is understanding that you can switch plans in chess, or operate with several possible plans. I think it’s fair to say that I do know about such things. The problem for me is actually your logic and your way of reasoning. In particular, I have problems with your ‘strategy’ and your ‘aim', which seems to be very fuzzy concepts.

<This flexibility is what makes " playing to make the transferrence possible" different from merely "transferring". Playing to make the transferrence possible plays to make other attacks possible as well, which transferring by itself does not. That is why the aim of the former is not necessarily the same as the aim of the latter.>

I note that you suddenly say ‘not necessarily’ instead of ‘NOT’. (If you don’t understand why this makes all the difference, we might have found your problem.)

It's interesting to compare the above with your first reply, in which you explained that the difference between “playing to make the transference possible” and “transferring” was that an immediate transfer might be refuted:

<The difference is that if Fischer does not first play so as to make the transference possible, but goes ahead when the transference isn't yet possible, the transference becomes then an unsound attack, and Black may refute it.>

So, a lot less abstract. This might be as an important difference as 'flexibility', right? Or have you changed your mind?

<It is like the difference between saying " I will get ready to make possible an attack in the north or in the south depending on your deployment" and " I will attack in the north." Clearly the two do not have the same aim.>

They do have an attack in the North in common, as you’ve written yourself. So they might have the same aim, depending on how things turn out. (If we can call the attack an ‘aim’- as you do- is another question. I try to use the word 'aim' as you do here, which admittedly isn't easy.)

In passing, we note that you’ve fallen back on using the word ‘not’, here strengthened by the word ‘clearly’, in contrast to 'not necessarily' above. You are not consistent, not even within the same post.

I suspect that you are confusing means and aims a bit, and that’s why I started this argument in the first place. (It’s not such a bad error, you might even have a future in politics.)

BTW, ultimately all the strategies have the same aim – MATE. =P

Feb-09-07  Ulhumbrus: <Cyphelium><So, you say that the two strategies do NOT (the choice of capital letters is yours) have the same aim, but then you actually say that they do have the same aim for a while, until you switch aim. There’s the contradiction for you. > No, I say that a strategy which has an aim is not the same as a strategy which has the aim of keeping more than one aim as an option <Your choice of capital letters here makes me assume (wrongly?) that you think my main problem is understanding that you can switch plans in chess, or operate with several possible plans. I think it’s fair to say that I do know about such things. The problem for me is actually your logic and your way of reasoning. In particular, I have problems with your ‘strategy’ and your ‘aim', which seems to be very fuzzy concepts. > I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you did not understand. Apparently, you do. A strategy can be inflexible enough to have but one aim, or be more flexible so as to have more than one aim possible, chosen in response to what the opponent does <I note that you suddenly say ‘not necessarily’ instead of ‘NOT’. (If you don’t understand why this makes all the difference, we might have found your problem.)

It's interesting to compare the above with your first reply, in which you explained that the difference between “playing to make the transference possible” and “transferring” was that an immediate transfer might be refuted:> In the event that Black does not make a change of aim advisable, the aim of the more flexible strategy becomes the same as the aim of a more rigid one. The words "not necessarily are more correct than not for this reason <So, a lot less abstract. This might be as an important difference as 'flexibility', right? Or have you changed your mind?> A lot less abstract to help make it clearer
<They do have an attack in the North in common, as you’ve written yourself. So they might have the same aim, depending on how things turn out. (If we can call the attack an ‘aim’- as you do- is another question. I try to use the word 'aim' as you do here, which admittedly isn't easy.) > One can aim to begin an attack

<In passing, we note that you’ve fallen back on using the word ‘not’, here strengthened by the word ‘clearly’, in contrast to 'not necessarily' above. You are not consistent, not even within the same post.> Quite consistent when both are understood correctly. If a strategy A does "not necessarily" have the same aim as strategy B, its aim then is "not" the same as that of B.

<I suspect that you are confusing means and aims a bit, and that’s why I started this argument in the first place. (It’s not such a bad error, you might even have a future in politics.)

BTW, ultimately all the strategies have the same aim – MATE. =P>> I am confusing nothing. I suspect on the other hand that neither are you, and your suggestion that I might have a future in politica suggests that you might have a future in politics. I said earlier that I might refrain from replying to further posts on your part if I had reason to believe that a reply was pointless. That point has now been reached. As you appear to have become a troll, it does seem pointless to reply further to your posts, when they suggest plainly that you do understand your error. If you persist insensately in repeating fslsities, I shall not reply further.

Feb-12-07  Cyphelium: <Ulhumbrus> I´m sorry to see that you consider me a ‘troll’. My apologies for annoying you. As for your answers in your latest post to my questioning of your terminology, I could go into details, because I certainly still don’t agree with you. However, I do share your opinion that it would be pointless (if for a different reason), so I’ll refrain from doing it.

One point though: It is clear from what you write that you think that I all the time has understood what you are trying to say and that I only keep posting to annoy you. This is not true. I genuinely have problems with navigating your lines of reasoning, in the posts below as well as elsewhere.

I’ll tell you then how I see it: Chess is very logical and concrete game. When we analyse chess we use variations. Strategies in chess, it may be concepts such as the pair of bishops, open c-file or whatever, are ultimately short cuts to variations, or an approximation of the most conceivable turn of events. They might certainly be useful for the practical player as some general guideline, but exceptions from all these ‘rules’ abound and as you should know, playing chess only using strategic ideas will get you absolutely nowhere if you don’t also calculate variations. Or in other words, having a pawn majority or the pair of bishops or the better pawn structure is useless if acquiring them means that you drop your queen to a three move combination.

Upon seeing postings such as yours, which very often have long wordy strategic discussions and very little in terms of concrete variations to illustrate said strategies, I always start to wonder if the author could tell me more about the logic and definitions that underlie his reasoning. In this case, for example, how do you define “aim” when applied to chess?

I think you have not told me anything really about your concept definitions – though I’ve questioned them you just go on discussing as if their meaning were completely evident, as you do in your latest post. You on the other hand think that your reasoning is sound and that I just try to drive you mad on purpose. If we can agree on nothing else, then please accept that I’m sorry for irritating you. The part about your future in politics might have been inappropriate, but to me that’s where we are heading if we discuss chess strategies and chess games with fuzzy concepts and no variations.

Jun-02-15  babakova: I was considering 28.Rxf6 exd4 29.Qb3+ Kh8 30.Ng5 which paints a pretty picture with the black queen running out of squares.


click for larger view

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, is totally anonymous, and 100% free—plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, profane, raunchy, or disgusting language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate or nonsense posts.
  3. No malicious personal attacks, including cyber stalking, systematic antagonism, or gratuitous name-calling of any member Iincludinfgall Admin and Owners or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. If you think someone is an idiot, then provide evidence that their reasoning is invalid and/or idiotic, instead of just calling them an idiot. It's a subtle but important distinction, even in political discussions.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No malicious posting of or linking to personal, private, and/or negative information (aka "doxing" or "doxxing") about any member, (including all Admin and Owners) or any of their family, friends, associates, or business interests. This includes all media: text, images, video, audio, or otherwise. Such actions will result in severe sanctions for any violators.
  6. NO TROLLING. Admin and Owners know it when they see it, and sanctions for any trolls will be significant.
  7. Any off-topic posts which distract from the primary topic of discussion are subject to removal.
  8. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by Moderators is expressly prohibited.
  9. The use of "sock puppet" accounts in an attempt to undermine any side of a debate—or to create a false impression of consensus or support—is prohibited.
  10. All decisions with respect to deleting posts, and any subsequent discipline, are final, and occur at the sole discretion of the Moderators, Admin, and Owners.
  11. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a Moderator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All Moderator actions taken are at the sole discretion of the Admin and Owners—who will strive to act fairly and consistently at all times.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Skopje 1967
by suenteus po 147
Instructional Remedies Vs. Caro-Kann
by southpawjinx
White - Caro-Kann: Nxf6
by gaborn
pawn structures
from Bobby Fischer's approach by edwinrcano149
CK9
from ANIL RAJ.R's KING PAWN GAMES by ANIL RAJ.R


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC