< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Aug-26-05|| ||RookFile: Well, I'm skeptical of what Crafty says. Bobby could have played 42. g3.
He only playes a line like 42. c5 after some deep analysis. However, I have checked a few sources, and don't see Crafty's 45.... bxc5 and 46...Nd7.|
I wonder what the winning idea is for white. One thought that comes into mind is to trade rooks. 46. bxc5 Nd7
47. Rc7 Nf8 48. Rb7. If white can achieve something like this, it's hard for the knight to stop the a pawn.
|Aug-26-05|| ||sitzkrieg: Emperor thanks again! Interesting to see that the computer gives black a plus. I will have to take a board to play the line for feedback soon.|
Rookfile; I think u mean 46 Rxc5; after 47 Rc7 maybe better Ne5 for black instead of Nf8 but i dont know if there is some general plan for black in this kind of position.
What u all think of the position after 48..Re7 with the plan of blocking the a pawn with Ra7 and tying the white rook to its defense. Then move the king to the queenside.
Looks like a sufficient plan for black too.
It seems this game again was not won by Fischers brilliancy but by Taimanovs errors and inaccuracies.
|Aug-26-05|| ||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.|
In the Crafty line, stronger is 49 a6 Ra8 50 Rd6 Ra7 51 Be2 Nc7 52 Rb6.
Your idea of 48...Re7 <with the plan of blocking the a pawn with Ra7 and tying the white rook to its defense. Then move the king to the queenside> seems to lead black to a similar fate as in the game after 49 a6 Ra7 50 Bb7.
|Aug-26-05|| ||sitzkrieg: Oww computers of course have their merits. But u are mistaken if u think i based my opinion on the line of crafty; as u can see from my previous post I even have to play/see in the board yet.
When i said "It seems this game again was not won by Fischers brilliancy but by Taimanovs errors and inaccuracies" i am not stating a fact but my opinion, and i hope it is not that senseless because many Fischer games including this one are kibitzed here like Fischer played hundreds of amazing moves and won by it while in fact often his opponent had an equal or better position but blundered. See also some other Fischer Taimanov games were we have this discussion.|
|Aug-26-05|| ||keypusher: <i hope it is not that senseless because many Fischer games including this one are kibitzed here like Fischer played hundreds of amazing moves and won by it while in fact often his opponent had an equal or better position but blundered.>|
It doesn't matter what foolish things other people have posted. If a million people had posted that Fischer moved the pieces by telekinesis that would not make your statement any more logical.
|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|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·