|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-09-09
 | | Eyal: <Was 57...Ng8 intending 58 ... Nf6 a possible way to draw?> If the idea is 57...Ng8 58.Bd5 Nf6 59.Bf7 Ne4 60.Bxg6 Nxg3, Kasparov gives in MGP a winning line which begins a few moves earlier and tranposes into this position. Changing the move numbers accordingly, it goes: 61.Bf7 Kc6 62.Be8+ Kc7 63.Kb5 Ne2 (63...Kd8 64.Bc6 Kc7 65.Bf3!) 64.Bxh5 Nxf4 65.Bf3 Nh3 66.h5 Ng5 67.h6 f4 68.Bd5 Kd6 69.Be4 Kc7 70.h7 Nf7 71.b4! axb4 72.cxb4 cxb4 73.Kxb4 Kd6 74.Kb5 Kc7 75.Bf3 Nh8 76.Bh5 Kb7 77.Kc4 Kc6 78.Kd4 and White wins. In case of 61...Ne2 instead of Kc6, he gives 62.Bxh5 Nxf4 63.Bf7 "and wins - Taimanov". I suppose it might go something like 63...Nd3 64.Bg6 Ne5 65.Bxf5 Nf7 66.Be6 Nh6 67.h5 Kc6 68.c4 Kc7 69.Ka7 Kc6 (69...Kd6 70.Kxb6 etc.) 70.Kb8! Kd6 71.Bd5 and Black can't defend b6. |
 |
| Jan-18-09 | | Eduardo Leon: Black's h5 looked horrible. |
|
| Aug-10-09 | | The Brain99: < Ulhumbrus: ...An alternative to 10...d6 is 10...Bxd4 11 Bxc7 Bxc3 12 bxc3 d5 which may end in a draw.> From Chess Fundamentals by J.R. Capablanca (This game in particular annotated by reviser GM N. De Firmian):
Taimanov now correctly avoids the queen trade as that would leave him with a weak point at d6. |
|
| Aug-11-09 | | BISHOP TAL: Im looking at the posts and I see fischer had to see 17 staight consecective moves to get a win out of this drawn endgame.How many other GMs past or present have the ability to do this in a game like this not many Fischer was a genius you cant expect your run of the mill super GM to find this. Fischer is like Zues God of the Gods... |
|
| Dec-27-09 | | sarah wayne: Fischer knew these minor piece endings
inside and out,he didn't have to calculate.Three years without playing may
have hurt,but Bobby would have crushed
Karpov in a ten win situation.He simply
didn't have the stamina.Remember six wins
in first Kasparov match exhausted him although he led 5-0 at one point. |
|
| Dec-27-09 | | MaxxLange: i think he had to calculate in this one |
|
| Dec-27-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Fischer was known for calculating long, deep lines of thought, especially where there weren't too many branches of analysis. |
|
| Mar-22-10 | | birthtimes: This looks like it was the first time Fischer played against the 8...Nxd4 line, as previously he had only played one game in 1970 against 8...d6 and one game in 1962 against 8...Be7. Taimanov, on the other hand, had played 8...Nxd4 twice in 1961, winning one and drawing one... |
|
| Apr-25-11 | | LIFE Master AJ: My annotations of this game.
http://www.angelfire.com/games4/lif... |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | SimonWebbsTiger: AJ says:
"I worked many, many, many hours on that web page. (I also used chess engines and consulted a variety of books in my library.) " I don't doubt it. Were is the original, analytical work, though? I see none. Because there is none, I don't see why AJ would use the possessive pronoun...."My annotations". Oh, please. An amalgam of written commentary and analysis by others, perhaps; is it a bad thing, not really since it is interesting to see how others looked at the game and compare. But to say they are one's annoatations? |
|
Apr-26-11
 | | TheFocus: <SimonWebbsTiger> Let me give another of <AJ>'s faulty statements. On the following page:
Fischer vs Geller, 1967 <AJ> made the pronouncement that he had examined Fischer's Qf4!! and claimed that after days and days of analyzing he had found no forced win. I followed his link, and lo and behold, there was no, I repeat, NO analysis given at all to back up his pronouncement. Not a single line of analysis, just that he had consulted his computers and decided there was no forced win. I am certainly glad this man has not produced any books. |
|
Apr-26-11
 | | perfidious: <TheFocus: Fischer vs Geller, 1967 <AJ> made the pronouncement that he had examined Fischer's Qf4!! and claimed that after days and days of analyzing he had found no forced win. I followed his link, and lo and behold, there was no, I repeat, NO analysis given at all to back up his pronouncement.> That we mortals even have the right to read his pearls of wisdom from on high is truly remarkable. We should be properly grateful for this. <Not a single line of analysis, just that he had consulted his computers and decided there was no forced win.> The paranoiac maunders on in his fantasy world, with an attitude acceptable in a six year-old: 'If I wish it, it must be so'. What I find hard to comprehend, in all of us here, is that we don't accept these fruits of genius, instead questioning them, along with Our Boy's motives, at every turn. I suppose it's what would be known as 'progress'. |
|
Apr-26-11
| | TheFocus: <He also went on to note that it had been several years since I had cranked out web pages on a regular basis ... he urged me to go back to that (positive) pursuit.> More drek on the way. We have been warned.
Vanity - thy name is <AJ>!! |
|
| Apr-30-11 | | kamalakanta: I have to conclude that those who are mercilessly criticizing AJ are full of it; I have examined his site and find the annotations both instructive and refreshing. AJ is doing good work.
http://www.lifemasteraj.com/games_l...
Credit where credit is due. |
|
| May-06-11 | | LIFE Master AJ: <Apr-30-11 kamalakanta:> Thanks! Read the header for my forum ... and you'll get more links!!! (Just posted a new game collection - you might like it - I stayed up all night creating it.) |
|
| Jun-28-11 | | thejack: Fischer at his endgame best, of course.
Still, to this day I find it rather ridiculous to claim him to be "the greatest endgame player ever"! I rather tend to agree with Reshevsky (and others!) who stated this part of the game was his "relative weakness". There is ample proof of it, even in MSMG:
Consider his draws against Botvinnik and Keres for example, both from 1962. In both games Fischer obtained a winning position but subsequently drew the game..
the conclusion obviously being that both Keres and Botvinnik were able to look deeper into this kind of endgame positions! Another case in point is the 2nd game from the Taimanov Match, where he again obtained a won game but mishandled it with 50.c5?, allowing Taimanov an easy draw..
which as we all know the guy blundered away on move 81. And I believe Fischers relative endgame weakness also made itself felt in the 1992 return match: If I remember correctly it was game 19 where he again completely misplayed an easily won endgame. I suppose players like Alekhine and Capablanca would not have mishandled a position like this even if they hadnīt played any chess for 30 (even more) years.. |
|
| Jun-28-11 | | fab4: Hey come on ! The 'draw' against old Bovinnik was played against the entire Soviet pantheon lol.. I just love adjournments. And please don't the 92' match. The Fischer who indeed is considered the 'greatest' left the chess world in 1972. Kotov amongst others remarked in 62' after Stockholm how accurate and capa like was Bobby's endgame .. at only 21. I think Fischer's endgame play by 1970 was approaching perfection. |
|
| Jun-28-11 | | thejack: Yes..of course youīre right about the ī92 match.
I was just wondering if one might be able to see some general tendencies in oneīs play..even if it has (indeed!) deteriorated over the years.. And by no means did I imply that Fischers endgame play was "weak"..
even Reshevsky on calling it "his relative weakness" hastened to add it was "strong enough"! And I too like many of Fischers endgames..especially the one which impressed Kotov so much, by the way (vs. Barcza in Stockholm 1962). Still I donīt consider him to be quite as strong in this area as players like Botvinnik, Karpov, Capablanca, Alekhine, Lasker. Just my two cents, however. |
|
Jun-28-11
 | | scormus: Appropriate pun, a coumputer-like logic in the Fischer's endgame play. As cold and unbendable as steel After the Qs went off, nearly 50 moves of misery for B. He was probably glad to resign, I would have been. |
|
| Jun-28-11 | | fab4: <thejack>
And a most welcome two cents too !
There's a fantastic rook endgame re Smyslov and the young Fischer.. from 59' candidates i think , but don't quote me on that. Anyway, it's worth checking out ! |
|
Apr-11-12
 | | Garech: I think this is my favourite endgame of all time; absolutely clinical by Fischer and a pleasure to watch. Cheers,
-Garech |
|
| Apr-27-12 | | LIFE Master AJ: http://www.angelfire.com/games4/lif... |
|
| Sep-20-12 | | Soinne: Look at the "Be8" moves at move 46, 49 and 61. What an immense progress has been made. Fischer, you were above human... |
|
| Sep-22-12 | | Tigranny: Probably my favorite Fischer game other than his Game 6 win against Spassky. |
|
| Sep-22-12 | | SChesshevsky: This was an excellent game by Fischer.
I would have thought that Taimanov would've been ready for g3 & Bf4 attacking the Qc7 given Fischer vs Tal, 1961 Also Fischer's endgame skill was probably a lot better than believed. While most likely not better than Karpov technically Fischer was maybe the best at seeing a small advantage and exploiting it for the win. This game and Fischer vs Tal, 1962 are good examples I think. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 62.Bxg6
icon.
