< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Aug-04-11|| ||diceman: <qqdos:
Is it heresy to cast a drop of doubt on the verdict that Petrosian's Bishop on d7 at move 22 was underperforming?>
How were his rooks doing?
Fischer improved on an earlier game from the world championship. (8.c4)
Passed up an exchange sac for position. (13.Re1)
Gave up a strong knight for a bad bishop. (22.Nxd7+)
How many lessons is he supposed to give in one game?
My guess is, the way he was playing chess he would have won anyway.
(taking the bishop or not)
|Aug-05-11|| ||qqdos: <diceman> I agree Bobby would probably have won anyway and that his Nc5 was strong (and stronger than Petrosian's Nf6); my query is, was the Black Bishop all that bad?|
|Aug-05-11|| ||Rama: Has 13. Bb5 ..., been analysed here? It looks okay to me: 13. Bb5 axb5, 14. Qxa8 b5-b4, 15. Ne2 ..., and white has an exchange.|
|Aug-30-11|| ||Paraconti: How simple did he make that look!|
|Aug-30-11|| ||DWINS: <Rama>, I'm sure that there has been plenty of discussion of 13.Bb5 somewhere in the previous 8 pages, but this is what Robert Byrne has to say, "Bobby refuses to be inveigled into the unclear consequences of snatching the exchange: 13.Bb5 axb5 14.Qxa8 O-O 15.Qa5 d4 16.Nxb5 Bb7".|
Houdini 1.5 agrees as it assesses 13.Re1 as being stronger than 13.Bb5.
|Aug-30-11|| ||whiteshark: Of all 3 possible re-takes, the chosen <10... exd5> seems to be the worst.|
|Oct-15-11|| ||kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
|Apr-10-12|| ||thejack: If I were to vote for the single most overrated move in chess history, it would probably have to be Fischerīs 22.Nd7: in this game!|
Since Black is planning 22.-Bb5 it is no more than one of two simple candidate moves (22.a4 and 22.Nd7)!
Hence two pretty strong annotators that i looked at didnīt even give the move an exclamation mark!
Euwe in "Chess Master vs. Chess Master" did not comment on it at all and just noted after 22. -Rd7: that white gained complete control of the c-file in return for the exchanged knight.
Abramov (or rather Cafferty?!) said basically the same and added that "with an unbalanced pawn formation and a potential passed b-pawn the pure ending bishop versus knight with rooks off must be a win for white."
That being said it is still a good game of course.
I especially like 13.Re1, 18. b4 - an 34.Bc4 is pretty strong too!
|Apr-27-12|| ||Everett: What makes Fischer's genius so evident is a game like this, where the moves seem understandable in straight-forward and classical terms, yet still unbelievably strong and accurate. Even beginners can learn from his games. Yet no one could emulate this style... Which I guess isn't the point...|
Fischer at his peak was able to get the types of positions he wanted, and no one seems able to steer him out of them. I think this is an important lesson to be taken away from his chess-playing: it is crucial to discover one's own style and fight for those types of positions at all-times. This in fact may be the one main way WCs separated themselves from the pack. They were all able to exert their will on the chessboard in specific ways which matched their sensibilities and strengths better than the rest. It wasn't just playing the best moves, IMO.
|Apr-27-12|| ||parisattack: Regards <Everett's> comment - This game is very capably analyzed in Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess by Craig Pritchett.|
|Apr-27-12|| ||Petrosianic: <When John Wayne Gacy kills someone, he's considered "the serial killer" but when someone kills an armed intruder, he's a big hero.>|
If we consider the circumstances in the two cases, we find that Fischer forfeited the game in an attempt to violate an agreement that he himself had agreed to (the presence of cameras in the hall), while Kramnik forfeited a game in an attempt to uphold something that he had agreed to (the right to use one's personal relaxation area). So, in that sense, their motivations were 180 degrees apart.
And yet, I still think they were both wrong to forfeit a game to try to make their points. Fischer forfeited to try to make a bad point, Kramnik forfeited to try to make a good one, but still we have the question of whether forfeiting a game to make ANY point is a good idea.
|Apr-27-12|| ||harrylime: Spassky memorably likened Fischer's chess style to a baby's |
Fischer's chess style was brutally honest and pure.
Ally this purity with his devotion and will, with his genius and obsession, with his desire and charisma.. and you have a chess monster. For all time.
|Apr-27-12|| ||OhioChessFan: I just skimmed 9 pages of kibitzing and saw no mention of how awful 23...Rd6 is. I don't know if Black could hold, but he had to try d4.|
|Apr-27-12|| ||King Death: <OCF> I'm not sure that 23...Rd6 is quite as bad as you think because Black just has a worse position with no counterplay, the best he can do is wait around while his opponent tries one idea or another. In this kind of inferior position even a great player like Petrosian can make mistakes. After 23...d4 maybe Fischer would've played 24.Rcc5 to attack a6 without giving up the e file or allowing 24.Ra5 Nd5. Maybe Black can hang on somehow but against Fischer's technique I'd have hated to play Black here.|
|Apr-28-12|| ||Everett: <OhioChessFan> after 23...d4, cant white just play 24.Ra5 and 25.a3 ? I think Petrosian walked into a losing position.|
|Jun-14-12|| ||thejack: To me 23.-Rd6 looks like the only move that adresses Whites threats of 24.Ba6: and 24.Rc6 a5 25.b5|
|Apr-18-13|| ||Everett: < whiteshark: Of all 3 possible re-takes, the chosen <10... exd5> seems to be the worst>|
Going through this game the first time years ago, I was like, uh oh, IQP with poor development and no initiative for Black. But, hey, I'm not so good so there must be some concrete reason why this was played. One of those rare instances where, it seems, my initial response was not so off the mark.
|Jun-05-13|| ||RookFile: Black does lag in development. What does that suggest - a kingside attack, aiming for checkmate? Sounds like it to me - for example, 12. Bg5 suggests itself, as in the Scotch game. Yet Fischer does quite the opposite - he plays for the endgame where he has the initiative. GMs like Najdorf were absolutely astounded at some of the exchanges Fischer made in this game, the most notable being 22. Nxd7!!|
|Jun-06-13|| ||OhioChessFan: <Everett: after 23...d4, cant white just play 24.Ra5 and 25.a3 ? I think Petrosian walked into a losing position.>|
23..d4 24. Ra5 Nd5 25. a3 Nf4
and I think Black is still breathing.
click for larger view
|Aug-15-13|| ||Chessman1504: This game is completely baffling to an amateur like me. On the surface, it looks like Fischer is just trading pieces!!|
|Aug-15-13|| ||Chessman1504: It is games like this that make me want to learn to play chess at a decent level. It seems like too much fun!|
|Aug-15-13|| ||AylerKupp: <Chessman1504> Yes, Fischer was just trading pieces. But the secret of the great ones are knowing which pieces to trade, and when.|
|Aug-15-13|| ||Chessman1504: Absolutely!|
|Aug-15-13|| ||Chessman1504: I like games that make chess in general look easy. This is one of those games!|
|Nov-15-13|| ||solskytz: <Chessman1504> When Fischer plays 12. Qa4+ with the intention to keep the Q there in case Petrosian blocks with his, he is telling us that he values his Q-side majority (2:1) higher than Petros' passed d-pawn, and thinks that the ending favors him. |
Each subsequent trade seems to enforce this view more and more.
With these trades, and as a result of pressuring black's own a-pawn, Fischer gains a stranglehold of the position, so much so, that in order to be able to move at all, Petrosian moves his knight away from d7, allowing Fischer entry with his other rook to the 7th.
Petrosian must have utterly missed the 34. Bc4 checkmating idea, or he would play something else, or resign altogether. It is true that by the time the second rook is let in, it is very difficult to give Petrosian any good advice.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·