< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 9 ·
|Jul-09-10|| ||Damianx: I saw a video of Kasperov saying Fisher could of been nick named the White Bishop instead of E4 he says no 1 has ever made more use of it and it was 1 of Fishers greatest weapons also Fisher insisted that Bishops are not the equal of Knights but slightly superior|
|Jul-09-10|| ||Damianx: ps and as a result nearly always favoured the bishops over knights|
|Jul-10-10|| ||cunctatorg: Even Karpov openly admitted (see YouTube...) the fact of the Curacao Conspiracy; regardless Karpov's subjective opinion, it's the easiest thing for every amateur to pay a visit at the games, played at this very tournament, between the three Curacao "cheaters" (Petrosian, Keres and Geller) and see what these games were about... |
Plain and simple... However this cheating thing is not a very big deal and I assume that Fischer could overcome even this obstacle at 1971...
Anyway Fischer's opinion about the great value of Petrosian's play is also openly declared! That's all from my point of view...
|Jul-10-10|| ||Petrosianic: <Even Karpov openly admitted (see YouTube...) the fact of the Curacao Conspiracy;>|
Call me Mr. Suspicious, but if Karpov (one of Korchnoi's worst enemies) "admitted" that Korchnoi threw games at a tournament that Karpov wasn't present at, that's not the most convincing evidence in the world to me. According to Korchnoi, Fischer himself quietly abandoned the theory a couple of years later.
|Jul-11-10|| ||SpiritedReposte: Dont forget Fischer spotting the WORLD CHAMP Spassky a game to go down 0-2. I cant believe he would forfiet a game at the highest level you can get to. Like he needed a bigger challenge?? He really was loony, but a chess immortal as well. No one coulda stopped him in 72'.|
|Jul-11-10|| ||Petrosianic: You're suggesting that all his objections about the cameras and threats to walk out if the forfeit weren't reversed, were a flat out lie. It's amazing how often people who try to make Fischer look better end up making him look worse. Isn't what he actually did good enough, without trying to add a Babe-Ruthesque Call-the-Shot angle to the story?|
The reality is that he forfeited the game expecting to get it back and get his way besides. He did get his way about the cameras but didn't get the point back. Initially he was going to walk out over it, but in the end decided not to give up his life's dream. Luckily he was good enough in 1972 to beat Spassky by more than a single point.
|Jul-11-10|| ||SpiritedReposte: I hadn't known he expected to get the game back, but bottom line he didn't. Looking at <Absentee's> post on the previous page, the facts are staggering, and they make Fischer look quite good on their own without a patzer like me speculating.|
|Jul-12-10|| ||Petrosianic: <but bottom line he didn't.>|
Right, he didn't. But from that point, beating Spassky 12½-11½ with a forfeit would be exactly the same as beating him 12½-10½ without one. But there are conspiracy kooks out there who go farther than that, and think that Fischer forfeited the game deliberately, for no other reason than to make the challenge more challenging. If you read back far enough on the notes to Game 1, you can find people suggesting that he deliberately threw that game too, just to make it more challenging.
I think that Game 1, more than anything, explains why Fischer couldn't go on after 1972. 29...Bxh2 is easily the most famous move of that match, and probably the most famous single move of Fischer's entire career. It was just a miscalculation, the kind that anybody can make now and then, but such a big deal has been made about it. How can you keep playing when every move, every defeat, and every miscalculation is front page news? Even Fischer couldn't have lived up to the expectations he'd built up after 1972. If he'd entered another tournament, people would be talking about whether he'd sweep it, and act like it was some kind of upset if he didn't. Kind of like when people watched every Nolan Ryan game to see if it was going to be another no-hitter, but worse. How could you pitch if everyone considered it a relative failure if you didn't throw a no-hitter?
|Jul-12-10|| ||4tmac: Probably the first game I ever studied and I still don't quite understand the thing.|
|Jul-12-10|| ||SpiritedReposte: Hey be nice <black.pr0jekt>|
Agreed, <Petrosianic> Bxh2 was the famous move of the match, but his career? I remember alot of his moves. Bd7 against Shocron, Qxf4 against Letelier, Rf6 against Benko.
I always thought too that once he reached his goal, he could never stand to lose it in his older age. Which will always happen no matter who you are, just a matter of how long you're there for.
|Jul-12-10|| ||Petrosianic: <Agreed, <Petrosianic> Bxh2 was the famous move of the match, but his career?>|
Highly subjective, I admit (who even asks a question like that?)
<I remember alot of his moves. Bd7 against Shocron, Qxf4 against Letelier, Rf6 against Benko.>
Yeah, different people remember different things. But I think that Bxh2 is the one that seems to stand out for the most people. It's the only move they actually asked about in 1992. And it wasn't even the losing move in the game.
I remember the games you mentioned pretty well, but not for any one move. In fact, when you mentioned Fischer-Letelier, the first thing I thought of wasn't Qxf4. It was Fischer playing O-O a move early, provoking a premature e5 from Letelier, and Fischer shredding his center after that. The winning move was great, but it was the culmination of the whole game. It wasn't like Levitsky-Marshall, where the winning move was the story of the whole game.
If you want to name the BEST move of Fischer's career, that Rf6 would be a strong candidate.
|Aug-07-10|| ||sonone: Fischer is correct the russians are cheaters!-look what happen in the first match with karpov-kasparov,85!-and even in the other matches!karpov's power with his chess mafia proved that it comes down when your sitting at the chess board.what did karpov think that he was gonna be world champ like lasker!-fisher had nothin to prove by playin karpov,although I wouldve like'd to see karpov get crushed!-just like kasparov did to him!-keep your friends close and your enemies closer!!|
|Aug-07-10|| ||sonone: Fischer spotted spassky 2-games!-just to show the russians that he is the best chess genius that ever played the game!-bein a wierdo comes with the territory!|
|Aug-07-10|| ||sonone: I was playin this game and played the black side-what do you genius's think?......1.e4-c5 2.nf3-e6 3.d4-pxp 4.nxp-nf6 5.nc3-d6 6.f3-a6 7.bg5-nbd7 8.g3-qc7 9.qd2-be7 10.000-b5 11.kb1-bb7 12.h4-00 13.g4-rfc8 14.be3-ne5 15.ka1-b4 16.nce2?-now the standard move here is 16..n5c4..but I played-16..bxe4!? What do you think?-thanks!|
|Aug-07-10|| ||sevenseaman: Petrosian outplayed!|
|Aug-07-10|| ||timothee3331: When Fischer forfeits a game, he is considered "the bad boy" but when the unlegitimate Kramnik deliberately throws one away, he is considered as a hero winning against oppression !
When Anand waits three days waiting for a car in Frankfurt instead of going to Sofia immediately, Fide grants him a free day. Isn't that scandalous ??|
|Aug-15-10|| ||sevenseaman: There is touch of subtlety the way Fischer consolidates(culminating in 24. Bf4) his hold on the 7th rank, the all-important grip.|
|Sep-25-10|| ||notyetagm: 22 c5xd7!!|
|Sep-25-10|| ||notyetagm: Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 |
Game Collection: TRANSFORMING ONE ADVANTAGE INTO ANOTHER 22 Nc5xBd7!! transforms good knight, bad bishop into winning pigs on the 7th rank
|Nov-29-10|| ||jrlepage: 22.Nxd7!! Planet Fischer... Somebody should have taken a picture of Petrosian's face right there. Many GMs understandably didn't grasp the idea on the spot... Just as famous as Fischer's Nxf2 against Robert Byrne.|
|Mar-13-11|| ||chesschampion11: or another famous Good knight against bad bishop exchange: Fischer vs Spassky, 1972|
|Jun-15-11|| ||JoeHolmok: Does anyone else think Petrosian should play 8...d5 here? It seems it would be more fitting to his style rather than allow the isolated pawn like he did.|
|Jul-30-11|| ||qqdos: <notyetagm> Perhaps you might like to take a look at G. Nesis's 1991 book Exchanging to Win in the Endgame, p.110. "In such positions Fischer always plays artistically"! You will find several other examples to add to your new Games Collection with its lonely entry.|
|Jul-30-11|| ||castledweller: Here is a real gem of a game . . .
- instructive at many points and a tribute to the genius of Fischer, especially in its simplicity.
In hindsight, it is now easier to see his genius and insight at work! Bobby entered the game with a plan, stuck with it even when conventional wisdom might have suggested he do otherwise such as:
(#1) at move 13 where Fischer could have got a rook for a bishop/pawn
(#2) at move 22 when he surprised even GM's by forsaking his strong knight outpost to take a underperforming bishop.
And throughout the game, we can see a focus on the position and underlying principles he is applying.
His simple but relentless plan reminds me of so many other great players - be they in tennis, golf, hockey, soccer, etc. You name it - in every and any sport, the truly great ones make it look and appear almost effortless.
Of course, it is the great INSIGHT he had that allowed him to make the mostly unerring calculations that left his opponents helpless.
Time has shown that he may have been very particular about the conditions and the setting for a match, but ultimately his moves and his play speak for themselves - clearly, simply and brilliantly. And they will undoubtably speak to many for a long, very long time to come, no?
|Jul-30-11|| ||bronkenstein: <...at move 22 when he surprised even GM's by forsaking his strong knight outpost to take a underperforming bishop.>|
M. Sereshevsky points out that moment in his ˝Endgame Strategy˝ (chapter ˝The value and exchange of pieces˝) as an excellent example of counter-intuitive exchange , based on deep judgement and concrete , precise calculation rather than abstract ˝bad bishop-good knight˝ thinking.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 9 ·