|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-21-18
 | | perfidious: There is more than one story of Fischer's graciousness in defeat. Lends weight to Kovacevic's side of the matter. |
|
Jun-18-18
 | | offramp: Today's pun refers to something which may or may not have been whispered to the winner by someone's wife. Fischer set a trap! If Black tried to win White's queen, then Black might have lost. But where is the trap? Where could Kovacevic have played to win the white queen. AFAICS he does do that! He tries to trap the queen but she escapes. And Black wins anyway. |
|
| Jun-18-18 | | thegoodanarchist: Fischer won 10 and lost 1 in the tournament, and what do we get for GOTD? The 1 loss. It's a Fischer hater conspiracy, I tells ya!
I bet the Bilderbergs are behind it... |
|
| Jun-18-18 | | morfishine: Sweet nothings are words exchanged between two lovers What that has to do this game god only knows
***** |
|
| Jun-18-18 | | posoo: MORFONGO, ur PETOLANCE is matched ONLY by ur lack of IMAGANATION. Da Petrosan lady and Kuva were OVIUSLY Chesslovers at da time and for them, beating FUSHER was as good as having INTERCORSE. |
|
| Jun-18-18 | | cormier: 13.Bc1 c5 14.Bb5 Nd5 15.Qxe7+ Kxe7 16.Bxd7 Kxd7 17.c4 = +0.12 (23 ply) sf |
|
| Jun-18-18 | | morfishine: POSINGYOO The game title is completely accurate: it means nothing |
|
| Jun-18-18 | | weisyschwarz: Smells like demise here. |
|
Jun-22-18
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: <Then he shook the young opponent’s hand, said ‘Very good,’ signed the score sheet, and left.> Kovačević was born a year before Fischer. |
|
| Aug-23-18 | | Ricosupercapo: What is the trap Fischer set with 18. f3? |
|
Aug-23-18
 | | Sally Simpson: The trap is here after Fischer played 18.f3
click for larger viewThe 'obvious' 18...Nh4 hitting the Queen with a Knight sac coming on g2 after the Queen moves looks very attractive. But 18...Nh4 19.fxe4 Rxg4 20.Bxg4 and White is getting another piece back for the Queen. The attack is dead, the crisis has passed. |
|
Aug-23-18
| | perfidious: This pitfall, successfully eluded, was mentioned by Mednis in <How To Beat Bobby Fischer>. |
|
Mar-06-21
 | | Pawn and Two: In this video Kovacevic reviews his win against Fischer at Rovinj/Zagreb 1970: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyE... |
|
| Aug-21-21 | | sudoplatov: I posted somewhere else something I read in a Russian (translated) book. The Soviet Chess Bureaucracy had discussions about how the US could produce such good players. The Soviets had a system that allowed anyone good to get coaching in positional judgment, openings, endings, tournament prep, etc. The Americans mentioned were Morphy, Pillsbury, Marshall, Reshevsky, and Fischer (skipping Fine and Kashdan and before Byrne and the current crop.) Another article (I cannot find anymore) was something by Tartakover complaining (in 1937 or so) that the US had 160 million people and thus could put together a stronger chess team than any European team. Another author (Euwe or Bernstein?) pointed out that all the US team came from New York City which was smaller than most European countries. |
|
| Dec-21-21 | | Mathematicar: It was a clear win, without cheating. That story is rubbish. Kovacevic just outplayed Fischer in this one. Vlatko was also excellent french defense player so it's not that hard to grasp that one could beat Fischer on one day in one game and this was just Kovacevic's day. Period. |
|
| Sep-21-22 | | Chessius the Messius: Fischer almost trapped his own Queen, translated: "Opponent must've been cheating." |
|
| May-04-23 | | PJs Studio: These points are all cute but moot. Fischer had a fascination with this horrible system against the French (gambiting the e pawn for blacks activity�?) I�m not positive this was the last time he ever used this garbage. |
|
May-04-23
| | perfidious: <PJ....I'm not positive this was the last time (Fischer) ever used this garbage.> The search feature is your friend.
This was the final voyage for this gambit in the hands of Fischer: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... |
|
May-04-23
 | | chancho: If Rona Petrosian whispered the moves to Kovacevic, well, poor Bobby. But Bobby's no Saint either:
<Ludek Pachman: "In the next round, I played Sanchez from Colombia. He is an opponent that plays each game 'uncompromisingly for a draw'. I was therefore overjoyed when I pulled him into Sicilian; moreover I pulled him into the variation where I had prepared my secret weapon. Of course I went for the complications, but then came a surprise and end---my king was in mortal trouble. Incomprehending, I stared at my opponent that showed such attacking genius. And, from behind my back, Bobby exploded in jubilation: 'That was not Sanchez that beat you; I blew that variant apart! He just played what I showed him. How very nice!!!..."> L A Sanchez vs Pachman, 1959 |
|
May-04-23
| | perfidious: In Mednis' <How to Beat Bobby Fischer>, he related how Fischer had revealed his perfidy, and how Pachman exacted retribution, though the manner of the telling was somewhat less entertaining than the account given here. Payback is a biyatch, and Jauregui was the biyatch.... |
|
Mar-17-24
 | | jinkinson: This game is discussed in both Mednis' "How to Beat Bobby Fischer" (1997 edition, starting on p. 251) and Timman's more recent book "The Unstoppable American". Both annotators agree that 10. Bg5? was a mistake, but Mednis goes somewhat further than Timman. Timman merely says that this move was "natural" but that 10. Ng3 was better. On the other hand, while acknowledging that "[t]his is a most difficult game to analyze from the standpoint of fixing the blame for Fischer's defeat", Mednis nevertheless concludes that 10. Bg5? "must be the losing move" (p. 252). |
|
| Mar-17-24 | | Cassandro: Thanks for the info, <jinkinson>, but: How on earth can 10.Bg5 be "the losing move", as Mednis put it? That sounds just silly. Granted, it's not the best move in the position (which is probably 10.Ng3 as mentioned), but White is far from lost after 10.Bg5. A very superficial comment from Mednis. |
|
| Mar-22-24 | | Granny O Doul: Everything is Kovacevic. |
|
Mar-22-24
 | | gezafan: <Granny O Doul: Everything is Kovacevic.> Very good!
It's a play on the slang phrase "everything is copacetic," which means everything is ok. |
|
| Feb-09-25 | | Petrosianic: To understand this game, you have to know this game: Fischer vs Uhlmann, 1970 Mednis describes the current game thusly:
MEDNIS: <"Objectively [5. a3] is okay in that White retains even chances, but this is a rather modest goal for White on move 4! Fischer has played the move periodically, and with indifferent results. In this game, however, it can be considered the psychologically losing move. How come? Well, just two rounds earlier against Uhlmann, Bobby had employed it and won in good style. This meant that Kovacevic was forewarned and was able to prepare for it especially, which he did, and found or learned an important improvement, while Fischer rested on his laurels. Bobby was totally surprised and couldn't find the right concept in over-the-board play.> Kovacevic's improvement on Uhlmann was 8... Nbd7. Uhlmann had played 8... Rg6, wasting a tempo to chase the Queen to a better square. But Kovacevic's move wasn't new, as Robert Byrne had already played 8...Nbd7 in this game: Fischer vs R Byrne, 1966 In that game Fischer had played 8. Ne2, giving Kovacevic good reason to expect it again. Byrne played 8...c5 and did fine, but Kovacevic's 8...b6 is even better, as it gets the QB developed faster, and in a few moves everything is pointed at Fischer's Kingside. Fischer's 9. Bg5? doesn't look all that bad, but in hindsight it must be the losing move, as it loses about two tempi without compensation, and there are no other moves that might be the loser. White makes no obvious errors in this game, but goes down fast. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
