< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-26-05|| ||sitzkrieg: Look up the word "context" in a dictionary|
|Aug-26-05|| ||sitzkrieg: I think there are far better and more beatiful games of Fischer where he wins by outplaying his opponents when they dont seem to make a mistake at all. But with this game and the others we discuss there are just too many grave errors by taimanov to praise Fischer so much for his victory.|
|Aug-27-05|| ||RookFile: It's sort of humorous: what have here is a line where Fischer has shown tremendous judgement: the game is in fact won for Fischer despite being a pawn down. In playing 42. c5, Fischer has calculated very deeply:
so deeply that some 35 years later, a
computer still can't see that white is the one winning, not black. Yet, after all this, we're still critical of Taimanov's play, when it's clear that he saw more over the board than most of us are seeing 35 years later, with our leisurely analysis.
|Aug-29-05|| ||keypusher: I shouldn't have been so dismissive -- Crafty's line looks like a real improvement on Taimanov's play, since it prevents the a6-Bb7 alignment Fischer used to win the game. Definitely could use further analysis.|
|Sep-01-05|| ||sitzkrieg: keypusher: "You astonish me, <sitzkreig>; elsewhere you state you are skeptical about computers, but given one dubious line by Crafty you are ready to conclude <It seems this game again was not won by Fischers brilliancy but by Taimanovs errors and inaccuracies>. A senseless statement on its face, since no one ever won a game without errors from his or her opponent."|
I dont get u Keypusher. U just said it was dubious and now this..Is it really my post that is senseless?
|Sep-02-05|| ||keypusher: It was senseless of you to say <It seems this game again was not won by Fischers brilliancy but by Taimanovs errors and inaccuracies> for the reasons I have stated. It was senseless & stupid of me to call Crafty's line "dubious" without looking at it more carefully.|
|Sep-02-05|| ||ripper: I can't see the black's losing move.In fact "nobody alive can beat me" (RJFischer) is the real solution.|
|Jul-06-06|| ||Gouki: on move 32....Bxd5?? I think, seems to be the blunder by Taimanov.|
why not, 32.Bc2 Bxa4 33.Bxa4 Nxe4!
in which black will win a rook and two pawns for a bishop and knight?
|Jul-06-06|| ||keypusher: <why not, 32.Bc2 Bxa4 33.Bxa4 Nxe4!> I think White can play 34. Qh4 attacking the rook...if 34...Re8?? 35. Bxe8.|
|Jul-06-06|| ||RookFile: Well, I don't have a chessboard in front of me, but 32. Bc2 Bxa4 33. Bxa4 Nxe4 34. Qh4 looks dangerous.|
|Jul-19-06|| ||Gouki: indeed...I did not see 34.Qh4. Thanks|
|May-16-07|| ||anjyplayer: Once again Underestimating bishop for a knight.|
|Aug-13-07|| ||Kriegspiel: What's wrong with 55...Nd8 attacking the bishop?
|Aug-21-07|| ||exchangesacrifice: Rb5 perhaps and White takes the b4 Pawn|
|Jun-23-08|| ||Marmot PFL: If black plays 46...Nd7 I think he has good chances to draw, the idea to play Ne5 (if Rc7) hitting Bf3, and possibly Nd3 attacking b2 and defending b4. Or if 47.Rd5 Rb7 48. a5 Kf8 49.a6 Ra7 50.Kf2 Ke7 51.Be2 Ke6 52.Rd4 b3 53.Rb4 Nc5 etc. In any case 46..Kg7 just looks like a waste of time.|
|Jan-10-09|| ||WhiteRook48: cramped position. Poor Taimanov.|
|Apr-26-09|| ||WhiteRook48: get that a7-rook!|
|Jul-12-13|| ||wwall: Instead of 44.Rxb4, perhaps better is 44.Rb3 Rxb3 45.Rxb3 (threatening 46.Rxb6) 45...Nd7 46.c6 Ne5 (46...Nc5 47.Rxb6 Rc8 48.Rb5 Nxa4 49.b3) 47.Bd5 (threatening 48.c7 Rc8 49.Rc3 and Bb7) 47...Rc8 48.Rxb6, followed by Ra6 and Rxa5.|
|Nov-25-13|| ||jdc2: I remember looking at the position after move 41 about 5 years ago and noticed that the engines I had at the time (Fritz 6 I believe and a beta version of Rybka) with a 333 Mhz machine took about 3 minutes to find Fischer's 42.c5. On my 2.1 Ghz laptop this is what happens with various engines today:|
Stockfish 4 not more than 1 sec (1 CPU)
Houdini 1.5a x64 3 sec though it changed briefly after
17 sec before changing back. (1 CPU)
Ruffian 1.05 10 sec (1 CPU)
Fritz 13 29 sec (1 CPU)
Rybka 2.2n2 mp 30 sec (2 CPU)
SOS 5 for Arena This one initially picked 42.c5 after about
17 sec, but then changed to a transposed line with 42.Kg1 Rxh4
43.c5, then after about 2 min decided it like 42.Kg1 Rxh4
43.g3 instead. (1 CPU)
Spike 1.2 Turin picked the c5 line after about 8 sec but then
after 17 sec changed to the transposed line, then after about
a minute decided that the line 42.c4-c5 Rd4-b4 43.Rb5xb4 a5xb4
44.Rc3-c4 b6xc5 45.Rc4xc5 b4-b3 was strongest. (1 CPU)
Crafty 23.05 I gave up after a minute and a half (2 CPU's!)
Herman 2.6 same as Crafty with 1 CPU
Stockfish is pretty amazing.
|Jun-28-14|| ||sicilianhugefun: We'll-timed squeeze|
|Oct-24-15|| ||jerseybob: <Gouki: on move 32....Bxd5?? I think, seems to be the blunder by Taimanov.> Vasiukov, annotating in the 1971 BCM, criticizes 35..Rdb8 as the loser, and claims 35..Ne6 should draw. Fischer prevents that next move with 36.Bf5!|
|May-15-17|| ||Mithrain: Another Bishop vs Knight from Fischer. I wonder if he did learn to play this position so well by himself or it was inspired but another great player. Nevertheless, great game by Bobby!|
|Feb-13-18|| ||hudman653: Isn't this a Maroczy Bind opening? I thought Fischer hated this opening based on his comments in My 60 Memorable games against Lombardy ??|
|Feb-14-18|| ||HeMateMe: there's no line where black can play N-d8 to win the b pawn and break out his Rook? After that, he swaps off the last white pawn on the kingside through pawn advances, maybe forcing a passed pawn of his own? It could be drawish if not played correctly by white.|
|Feb-14-18|| ||morfishine: After this debacle, Black was asked to take some "Time-n-off"|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·