< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-02-11|| ||TheProf: 19 .. Bh3 was probably a key error. Could have tried Be6, perhaps leading to a worse endgame.|
At move 22, Kh8 would have been a better try.
If 21 .. Qd2, White continues Qe4 and Nxf7
|Dec-19-11|| ||harrylime: 19 .. Be6 is ugly, but Black's alive..|
|Dec-19-11|| ||AylerKupp: <<FSR:> <keypusher> "The refutation of any gambit begins by accepting it. In my opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force." Bobby Fischer, "A Bust to the King's Gambit, American Chess Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Summer 1961), p. 4. Note that he didn't say the King's KNIGHT'S Gambit is busted, he said the King's Gambit is busted.>|
Well, you're technically correct. However, in his article (http://academicchess.org/images/pdf...) he only addresses 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d6. Nowhere in the article does he address 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4. So, title aside, he was clearly addressing the "bust" of the King's Knight Gambit, although 3...d6 4.Nf3 h6 would transpose into his "bust", what he would have liked to have called "the Berlin Defense deferred".
Of course, the bust of 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 might be covered by his wonderful concluding observation, "Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently." LOL!
|Dec-19-11|| ||AylerKupp: <<HeMateMe:> downright nasty. Will the KGA make a comeback? It seems to run in cycles.>|
The KGA will probably not make a comeback until Fischer makes a comeback. That would certainly be an interesting cycle!
|Dec-20-11|| ||Shams: <Nowhere in the article does he address 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4. So, title aside, he was clearly addressing the "bust" of the King's Knight Gambit, although 3...d6 4.Nf3 h6 would transpose into his "bust".>|
<3.Bc4> players are not looking to transpose back into the Fischer defense of the King's Knight Gambit, though. <3...d6?! 4.d4> scores attractively for White.
|Dec-20-11|| ||Nemesistic: <Aylerkupp> I just got soundly beaten about an hour ago by a 2350 playing the White side of a KGA..He played 3..d6 too..I won't be playing it again,but Fischer didn't "Bust" the KG like he claimed,he may have been a brilliant player but he was also a total crackpot!|
|Dec-20-11|| ||Shams: 5.Qf3 is an interesting try in this line as well.
|Dec-20-11|| ||AylerKupp: <<Shams> <3.Bc4> players are not looking to transpose back into the Fischer defense of the King's Knight Gambit>|
Oh, I agree, I was just trying to anticipate a possible "what if" and the argument that Fischer's "bust" would apply to 3.Bc4 as well if followed by 4.Nf3. But, as you pointed out, 4.Nf3 is not a likely follow up to 3.Bc4, particularly after the most frequently played 3...Nf6.
In fact, since the purpose of 3...d6 is to prevent a possible Nf3-e5, 3...d6 doesn't accomplish anything (other than block one bishop and free another) so it doesn't make any sense for Black to play ...d6 until White plays Nf3.
|Dec-20-11|| ||AylerKupp: <<Nemesistic:> Fischer didn't "Bust" the KG like he claimed, he may have been a brilliant player but he was also a total crackpot!>|
Oh, of course he didn't bust it. He simply came up with a move order that eliminated one of White's main lines. But any player that's willing to play 1.e4 e5 2.f4 is certainly willing to forego Nf3-e5 if it's not possible.
And, unfortunately, sometimes being brilliant and being a crackpot go together. There was a story (which I'm sure is not true) that a group of wealthy chess patrons early in Fischer's career were willing to pool their resources and pay for Fischer to see a psychiatrist. But one of them pointed out that if Fischer did see a psychiatrist and became "cured", he might not longer be a brilliant chess player. So the other wealthy chess patrons dropped the idea.
|Dec-20-11|| ||Shams: <AylerKupp> The way I heard that story I'm not sure if it ever got as far as discussing psychiatric help, just loose talk on the part of other American GMs about what could be done to help the strange and aloof lad. As Andrew Soltis tells it, somebody wondered aloud if a more balanced Bobby might not play such brilliant chess-- a silence fell on the room "and as far as I know, the subject was never brought up again."|
|Dec-20-11|| ||Penguincw: That's what you do to a pinned piece. You attack it, then capture it.|
|Dec-20-11|| ||Garech: Interesting notes above about which variations Fischer was busting. Some of the lines he discussed transpose to the bishop's gambit, but as <AylerKupp> points out the main focus was 3.Nf3|
Ironically enough, the main purpose of 3.Bc4 is to prevent (or at least hinder) an immediate d5 push from black which, if one is following Fischer's 'refutation', is not a move you are going to play any time soon anyway!
|Dec-20-11|| ||King Death: < Garech:...Ironically enough, the main purpose of 3.Bc4 is to prevent (or at least hinder) an immediate d5 push from black...>|
Not that it always used to stop them in the good old days though: J Schulten vs Morphy, 1857.
|Dec-20-11|| ||Lil Swine: <beatgiant:(Hey! Who was that kibbitzer who said Fischer never used smothered mate?)>|
i remember there was a smothered mate line for Fischer in " the game of the century", somewhere involving the knight sac
|Dec-20-11|| ||Shams: <King Death><Gareth> In his '64 simul tour, Fischer met <3.Bc4 d5> with the bishop capture <4.Bxd5>, now disfavored since Black must surrender the bishop pair. |
Fischer vs W Nyman, 1964
I don't know if Bronstein was the first to play <exd5> in such positions, but I think he showed the way.
|Dec-20-11|| ||FSR: According to Opening Explorer, 3...f5 kicks White's ass. But since only four of the 47 games with that move have been played in the last 40 years, that might have to be taken with a grain of salt.|
|Dec-21-11|| ||FSR: <Shams: <King Death><Gareth> In his '64 simul tour, Fischer met <3.Bc4 d5> with the bishop capture <4.Bxd5>, now disfavored since Black must surrender the bishop pair.>|
You mean White.
<I don't know if Bronstein was the first to play <exd5> in such positions>
Nah, NN kicked Staunton's ass with it 170 years ago. NN vs Staunton, 1841
|Dec-21-11|| ||Shams: <FSR> Yes, read <White> for <Black>, thanks. |
I think this is one of the earlier "modern" games in this line:
Bronstein vs Tseshkovsky, 1978
Thanks for the link. I love seeing Staunton die horribly against gambit play. <NN> was in rare form in that game, really good play. I wonder what <NN>'s best career game is considered to be?
|Dec-21-11|| ||Robed.Bishop: Let's face it, or at least I will: if Fischer busted the gambit, he did so only for players with his vision. For a mere mortal like me, he gave me some excellent insight into one variation that should improve my chances of winning, though it certainly won't guarantee me a win.|
|Dec-21-11|| ||King Death: That NN has one long career. I don't know why, because his numbers are miserable. Hell man, I could win 20 or so games against some of those players.|
|Jan-17-13|| ||leka: This Fischer Minic game the move 20.knight e5!!!! is one of te best of Fischer.Even the computers have to thik it.All the others Fischer famous moves against Larsen rook e5! Benkö rook f6! Gligoric rook f6! D.Byrne bishop e6! these moves computer solved under second thinking time|
|Jan-17-13|| ||RookFile: Fischer knew better than most the power of that bishop on b3.|
|Jan-17-13|| ||tonsillolith: What is the purpose of <18. g3>? I would have thought it better to play Kg1 immediately.|
|Jan-17-13|| ||TheFocus: <tonsillolith> 18.g3 is to drive the Black Queen off the f-file, allowing White to attack the f7-square. Fischer had Ne5 in mind when he played g3.|
|Sep-05-13|| ||Kinghunt: <leka> I guess you're technically correct in that it's not quite an instant find, but on my laptop, Stockfish 4 finds 20. Ne5 in less than two seconds (roughly 1.2 seconds). There are very few moves that machines do not see almost at once.|
The following are the only games in this database I am aware of where the computers cannot find a clear win:
Karjakin vs Anand, 2006 24...Nc7!
Short vs Timman, 1991 31. Kh2!
Topalov vs Shirov, 1998 47...Bh3!
Bronstein vs Ljubojevic, 1973 22. Rxc5!
There may be others, but I am not aware of them.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·