|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Feb-12-07 | | grebenarov: honestly, i don't see why this is the game of the day |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | kevin86: My grandpapy once told me that a knight is superior to a bishop in blocked pawn positions. In this case,he was wrong. White,instead trades his bishop for two connected passed pawns-and pulls it out of the fire. Note: a minor piece is helpless to stop two pawns without the help of the king. It is quite known that two connected pawns on the sixth usually win against a rook if both kings are away--and also,that three connected pawns on the fifth can win also. With the pawn's king nearby,pawns further back can also win. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | euripides: come to think of it after <1.Rxa2 Kxa2 2.g5 Re6+ 3.Kd3 Re3+ 4.Kxd4 Rxf3 5.g6 Rg3 6.Ke5 Rg5+ 7.Kf6 Rxh5 8.g7 Rh6+> White can simply play 9.Kg5 as after 9...Rh1 (hoping for the skewer) 10.g8=Q is check. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | WickedPawn: < grebenarov: honestly, i don't see why this is the game of the day > I would mention the interesting tactical series that went off after 17 Nd5, which simplified completely the board. I guess both players spent a lot of time figuring out the long lines that would result after 17. ..., Bxd5 and 18. ..., e4. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | suenteus po 147: <WannaBe> Did we play an endgame like this sometime ago? Maybe it was a rook instead of a bishop. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | Veryrusty: What I've always liked about this game is the double zugzwang: 61. Be8 forces Taimanov to bust himself, but 54. Bb3 is its precursor, since without that zug Black can keep White's king out of a6 (as ... Nc6 in reply gives counterplay).
So the Bishop, who can slide along diagonals, is able to create multiple zugzwangs that the Knight (who alternates colors) and the King (who can only maintain the Opposition by standing still) cannot match. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | Themofro: Knights are generally better than bishops in blocked positions in the opening and middlegame because other peices can take care of where the centralized knight can't, however in endgame with pawns on both sides, sometimes having a bishop for knight and no other peices with pawns on both sides of the board, the bishop can win it even if you are a pawn down. Several times I've had a bishop and 3 pawns versus knight and 4 pawns or whatever and won because the pawns were spread. However, if all the pawns are on one side of the board then generally the knight is superior in the endgame to the bishop, this is equally important though not as well documented as the bishops superiority if pawns on both wings. |
|
Feb-12-07
 | | fm avari viraf: Fischer's dominance can also be seen in this beautiful end game where the Russian GM Taimanov couldn't salvage the peril of Bobby's dominant B creating zugswang. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | chopin4525: There is only one comment to do:WOW!!! |
|
Feb-12-07
 | | beatgiant: <Koster: Very obliging of Taimanov to put all his K side pawns on light squares.> In general it's true the defender should avoid such weakening pawn moves. For example, what if, instead of 35...h5, he temporizes with 35...Ne7 or 35...Nd8. What's White's winning plan against such a waiting defense? White would probably try to attack on the kingside. One possibility is later pawn pushes g4, h5, g5 so if black plays ...hxg5, fxg5 and White will get a passed h-pawn. Or another way is Kg4-Kh5, followed by g4-g5 and White will still eventually induce some pawn weakness on Black's kingside. I'd be interested in seeing other people's opinions or lines about this. |
|
| Feb-12-07 | | DWINS: <beatgiant>, I think you're absolutely correct. In "Both Sides of the Chessboard", Robert Byrne had this to say about 35...h5. "It is unpleasant to put another pawn on the same color as the bishop, but there is a danger that White may either open kingside lines or force still more weaknesses by g4-g5." |
|
| Feb-13-07 | | Veryrusty: Veryrusty: Regarding the static pawns, Black has them on the non-Bishop square on the Queenside and that's a weakness too. Go back to 25. Bf1, Black's choices are ... Ra8, where Bc4 wins the f pawn, or a5 as played, which fixes the pawns.
Then, just about the time Black might get the Queenside straightened out, 33. a4 locks that trio as static. This game is like a Swiss watch, it has a ticking inevitability to it. |
|
Feb-15-07
| | beatgiant: <DWINS>, <Veryrusty>
Thanks for those replies.
If Black's choices were "concede a weakness immediately by playing 35...h5" or "wait until White plays a longer maneuver to eventually force some other weakness", the latter is a more stubborn defense - unless "some other weakness" is a more severe one. So I was looking for a more concrete answer. For example, if Black plays a waiting defense like 35...Nd8, and White attacks with 36. g4, 37. h5, 38. g5, now Black can either give White a future passed h-pawn with 38...hxg5 39. fxg5, or let White split the kingside with 39. gxh6. But is this decisive? It looks bad enough for Black, but I'm not completely sure, and unfortunately, I don't really have time to do a detailed analysis at the moment. |
|
Feb-16-07
 | | Joshka: Chess is funny, if black plays 10...Bd4...with 11...Bc3 very natural....he probably gets a draw...all the what if's...:-) |
|
| Feb-16-07 | | RookFile: Against Bobby Fischer, you might get a draw.... after every single possibility is exhausted, first. I don't think that is the case with any move you can move on the 10th move of a game. |
|
| Feb-16-07 | | TheSlid: <Joshka> With all due respect, what use was a draw to Taimanov at this stage? 3-0 down in a 10 game match. |
|
| Feb-16-07 | | setebos: He might have played the piano with more gusto :) |
|
Feb-16-07
| | Joshka: <Theslid> I believe in this match draws counted. So enough said, unless this was the first to win 6 games, which I doubt. |
|
Feb-16-07
 | | keypusher: <Joshka> Bronstein had published analysis on 10...Bxd4 11. Bxc7 Bxc3 12. bc and concluded that it gave white the advantage. In any case, there was no reason for Taimanov to think that giving Fischer the bishop pair was a good way to get a draw. <theslid> I think Taimanov would have been happy with a draw in this game or even game six (Fischer vs Taimanov, 1971) because he wanted to avoid a shutout -- unlike Larsen, who tried to win until the end. |
|
Feb-16-07
| | Joshka: <keypusher> Wow really!..would like to see the Bronstein notes on that line, thanks for the info! |
|
Feb-16-07
| | keypusher: <joshka>
<Of course Fischer was familiar with the recommendation 10...Bxd4 11. Bxc7 Bxc3 12. bxc3 d5 13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Be5 f6 (Bronstein vs Taimanov, 1961) 15. c4! Nb4 16. Bd6 with unpleasant pressure for White.> OMGP IV, p. 390. |
|
| Feb-16-07 | | RookFile: This game is basically an example of what would have happenned to Karpov had they played a match. The type of opponent who was more dangerous for Fischer was a guy like Tal or Kasparov who mixed it up tactically, and was not afraid to take risks in doing so. |
|
| Feb-16-07 | | Gregor Samsa Mendel: <RookFile: The type of opponent who was more dangerous for Fischer was a guy like Tal or Kasparov who mixed it up tactically, and was not afraid to take risks in doing so.> Sounds like Spassky's style to me.
But by 1975 the last light bulb in Fischer's marquee had burned out, so we will never know what would have happened had the '75 Fischer-Karpov match actually taken place. |
|
| Feb-16-07 | | square dance: <rookfile> is back on the juice. |
|
| Feb-16-07 | | Plato: Taimanov was not afraid to mix things up tactically. Even among strong Grandmasters, he was noted for his superb calculating ability. Fischer was just better, but that's about all we should glean from this game. Taimanov was no Karpov. It is absurd to divine what would have happened in a Karpov-Fischer World Championship based on this game (or match). |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 62.Bxg6