< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 21 ·
|Nov-06-11|| ||I play the Fred: I remember reading somewhere that some Soviet GM's were predicting that Fischer might deviate from 1 e4, but Spassky didn't believe it.|
|Nov-06-11|| ||JoergWalter: <I play the Fred> right. I remember it was Korchnoi who suggested it.
The only thing Tal, Petrosian and Korchnoi were 100% sure was Fischer wouldn't dare to play the <Fred> :-)|
|Nov-06-11|| ||DrMAL: <I play the Fred:> Well, he did make a point to play other moves before, in particular his 1.b3 showed up Larsen few years before by winning several games. In any event, <AnalyzeThis> may be right, it also explains the whole camera thing too, maybe Fischer had a double and the double sometimes played moves other than 1.e4 this sounds more plausible than Spassky and entire Soviet team comprising most of the world'd top players preparing for nothing other than 1.e4 LOL cheers.|
|Nov-06-11|| ||RandomVisitor: 14...Qb7! is hard to find, even for a computer:
click for larger view
[-0.32] d=23 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.Be2 a5 17.0-0 Nd7 18.Rc2 Qb4 19.Qd3 Rcb8 20.Rfc1 a4 21.a3 Qb6 22.h3 Ra7 23.Qc3 Qd6 24.Rd1
|Nov-06-11|| ||DrMAL: <RandomVisitor> Not really, but computer was not used in 1972 anyway. 16...Qb7 is INFINITELY harder to find because, unlike 14...Qb7 it does NOT help black position! 16...Qb7 must be misprint, this is only logical explanation for it ever appearing.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||JoergWalter: <DrMal> for GM Keene's answer see his page. As far as I understand he got the impression that 14.Qb7 was not prepared from a discussion with Timman after the latter played his game with Geller in 73. (Unless Spassky had forgotten about it.)|
Spassky had already "forgotten" the continuation after 13.... a5! in game 4 and if that was what happened in game6 as well - Mama mia he was very "cooperative" to Fischer, wasn't he?
|Nov-07-11|| ||DrMAL: From Timman vs Geller, 1973 <SimonWebbsTiger: Geller suggested 16...Qb7 in his Informator 9 notes to the loss to Furman. All the authors and journalists at the time would know of that suggestion, however what they wouldn't know -- as later mentioned by Geller in his book of games -- is the variation had been strengthened by 14...Qb7, which Spassky didn't employ, to his surprise. He used the novelty versus Timman a year later.> Finally, some real evidence that makes sense. Unless Soviet player, the inside story that Geller later published in his book would not be known. At the time, only public criticism was of move 16, also played two years earlier in Furman vs Geller, 1970. |
In book, "World's Greatest Chess Games" (Burgess, Nunn and Emms) they write, "Commentators have been universal in criticizing this move, but in far less agreement as to how Black should improve." Next page in suggestions, they write for line 4 16...Qa7! "A refinement of line 3 (16...Qb7) and best according to Seirawan" giving 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Rc3 a5 "and black can secure counterplay on the b-file against the b2 pawn." According to computer 18.Rc3 in this line is error, giving black tiny edge.
Houdini_20_x64: 28/58 27:16 17,107,487,696
-0.17 19.Bb5 Nf6 20.Bd3 a4 21.Rfc1 c4 22.Bc2 Rcb8
Instead, here is computer eval showing what comment in book implied, there is no move to help black.
Houdini_20_x64: 30/66 6:23:10 246,467,171,816
0.00 16. ... Qa7 17.Ba4 a5 18.Rfd1 Na6 19.Bc2
0.00 16. ... Nd7 17.Bxd7 Bxd7 18.Rfd1 Be6 19.h3
0.00 16. ... Nc6 17.Bxc6 Rxc6 18.Nd4 Rc7 19.Qa5
-0.01 16. ... Qd8 17.Ba4 Qb6 18.b3 Nd7 19.Bxd7
-0.01 16. ... Qb7 17.Ba4 Qb6 18.b3 Nd7 19.Bxd7
-0.03 16. ... Qd6 17.Be2 Qb6 18.Ne5 Nc6 19.Nd3
-0.04 16. ... Kf8 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Rfd1 Nf6 19.Qa5
-0.09 16. ... Qf8 17.Rfd1 c4 18.Qxf8+ Kxf8 19.Ba4
-0.11 16. ... Ra7 17.Be2 Rac7 18.b3 Bf5 19.Qb2
-0.11 16. ... Rc7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Nf6 19.Nxe6
This helps to understand both commentary in book and evidence from <SimonWebbsTiger> by Geller. As I wrote, during the two years that transpired, Geller found move that improved black position 14...Qb7 shared this with Spassky and during game Spassky decided not to play it, missing opportunity gained.
|Nov-07-11|| ||ewan14: I do not think Fischer had better tournament results than Spassky in the 60's|
Look at Spassky winning the 1964 '' zonal tournament of seven ''
above Stein , Bronstein , Kholmov , Suetin , Korchnoi , Geller
as strong as Curacao 62 ?
Spassky's match results during the 60's were amazing !
|Nov-07-11|| ||ewan14: Korchnoi , for one , suggested Fischer might play d4|
Apparently it WAS suggested to Spassky
|Nov-07-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: <ewan: I do not think Fischer had better tournament results than Spassky in the 60's >|
Spassky had wins, but he also had several tournaments where he's finishing 6th place, 8th place, etc. Fischer was consistently first in just about every tournanment he played in, with only the very occasional second.
|Nov-07-11|| ||Rama: Does no one remember the cover of Chess Life & Review just prior to the match showing Boris studying next to a stack of opening books, spines visible with titles of all the KP openings -- French, Sicilian, etc. "But Boris, what if he doesn't play 1. P-K4?" was the caption.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: Sure, we remember it. As I said, he had already played 1. c4 followed by g3, for example. That could have been forseen. The Queen's Gambit from Fischer was something else again. It doesn't surprise me that some people came running forth and said: "I told you so", but the idea that they covered this specific variation of the Queen Gambit, with ...Qb7 and everything, is just absurd. Contrast this game with Fischer's first Sicilian with white (where Fischer did well to get a draw), and you'll see a huge difference in opening preparation.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<analyzethis>
Why do you find it hard to believe the Soviets wouldn't make sure all possibilities in a World Chp. match, and that against an American, be covered?
Imagine the "whoops" looks on the Soviet faces as the KGB handlers, already cabling Moscow, wondered why their man was not prepared for any eventuality....
We are not talking about prep. for the Sunday pub league here.
1.c4 e6 more often than not heads for a QGD, Catalan, Nimzo or Queen's Indian. Spassky played the Tartakower QGD as did Geller (although the latter still played the KID too, in the 70s).
|Nov-07-11|| ||DrMAL: <SWT> & <ewan14> This is absurd waste of time, for some absurd reason <AnalyzeThis> is absolutely insistent on being absurd about Fischer playing d4, he did so several times during this match. It is also absurd for him to keep insisting Fischer chose QGD when it that was obviously black's choice (unless they agreed to temporarily switch sides in some absurd way). It is absurd to imagine that d4 would not at all be prepared for. Argument is absurd, <AnalyzeThis> is absurd, writing any more on it leads to infinite absurdity loop which, in itself is absurd, cheers.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||FSR: <ewan14: Korchnoi , for one , suggested Fischer might play d4|
Apparently it WAS suggested to Spassky>
Fischer didn't play 1.d4 in the match. He did play 1.c4 and some of the games transposed into the Queen's Gambit Declined. Fischer never played 1.d4 in a non-blitz tournament or match game. The only known games ever where Fischer played 1.d4 are Fischer vs Hort, 1970 (blitz tournament); Fischer vs E Gomez, 1970 (simul); Fischer vs J Altusky, 1954 (offhand game). Repertoire Explorer: Robert James Fischer (white) He didn't do too well with it, either - a win, a loss, and a draw.
|Nov-07-11|| ||DrMAL: <FSR> Yes that is more evidence toward preparation, not that it needs any. After 1.c4 e6 English is basically out and after 2.Nf3 d5 idea of Reti with 3.g3 would still be possible. At this point Fischer (or some double who DOES play d4 in opening) absurdly played 3.d4 and BLACK played 3...Nf6 turning game into version of QGD (3...Bb4 could become Nimzo but 4.Nc3 Nf6 would transpose to QGD/Ragozin anyway). If, by some entirely absurd coincidence, someone among vast majority of world's top players on Soviet team (including Spassky himself) had absurd idea of making some sort of absurd preparation, it MAY just account for black's (absurd) choice of moves! LOL, cheers.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||FSR: <DrMAL> I agree that (1) Spassky must have prepared to play against 1.c4, which Fischer had played against Polugaeveky and Panno in the Interzonal, (2) after Spassky's first move 1...e6, and his second move 2...d5, he could not have been surprised that Fischer transposed to a Queen's Gambit with 3.d4, which is also confirmed by (3) Geller's account that he discussed 14...Qb7! in the Tartakower Variation with Spassky, and that Spassky forgot about it when he and Fischer reached that position. So yes, you are right that Fischer's choice of the Queen's Gambit cannot have been a surprise to Spassky.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: <SimonWebbsTiger: Why do you find it hard to believe the Soviets wouldn't make sure all possibilities in a World Chp. match, and that against an American, be covered?>|
Well, for one thing, if you listen to Karpov's description of how Spassky prepared, it seems that Karpov thought Spassky was being very lazy about it, and not putting in the proper preparation. That's what Karpov says, and he was there. Meanwhile, you've got guys here saying that Spassky was hard at work, preparing a TN in an opening that Fischer didn't even play.
Next, they'll be saying that Spassky was preparing TN's for Bird's Opening, too.
|Nov-07-11|| ||DrMAL: <FSR> That's not very absurd of you. IDK why there would be such argument or disbelief, all is quite logical. What I wrote about preparation just comes from learning it many years ago, I did not post to attract attention or give disservice to anyone, just wanted to share some facts. I guess it was not very absurd of me either. <AnalyzeThis: preparing a TN in an opening that Fischer didn't even play> Well, someone played it, whoever it was passed well for Fischer, no one even got suspicious. It would not be surprising if, among the dozens of top players on Spassky's team, someone worked on a novelty for Bird's Opening too. Ideal preparation is fully complete, prepared for anything possible.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: That must be why Karpov says in the last 20 days before the match, he was with Spassky and Spassky did virtually <nothing> to prepare for Fischer, except for one training game:|
"Spassky didn't make serious preparation" - Anatoly Karpov.
|Nov-07-11|| ||FSR: Fischer played 1.f4 in the blitz tournament game Fischer vs Smyslov, 1970, so it would not be shocking if Spassky's team had done a bit of preparation for that.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||DrMAL: <AnalyzeThis> No one is disagreeing with Karpov, the fact that Spassky was playing tennis most of the time (as I originally wrote) has nothing to do with the several dozen others on team, if they were caught playing tennis their next game would be in Siberia against bear. It is clear you are not going to give up being absurd, whatever, I for one certainly do not care.|
It is also clear that you somehow take the facts here to be some sort of insult toward Fischer, apparently a God in your mind. Spassky not playing a prepared move that may have won, or at least not lost, has nothing to do with this either. It does not imply Spassky was better player or that he may have won match. It is what it was intended to be, simple fact and nothing else.
|Nov-07-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: I think that Raymond Keene and Karpov know more about this matter than you do. Based upon their statements, it is incredibly unlikely that Qb7 was a prepared possibility for this game.|
|Nov-07-11|| ||TheFocus: <Rama>< Does no one remember the cover of Chess Life & Review just prior to the match showing Boris studying next to a stack of opening books, spines visible with titles of all the KP openings -- French, Sicilian, etc. "But Boris, what if he doesn't play 1. P-K4?" was the caption.>|
I remember this. I was just looking at it this week. It had Spassky and his seconds on it. A cartoon.
|Nov-07-11|| ||DrMAL: <AnalyzeThis> How much do you know about three of us that allows you to make that assessment? I guess, when all else fails only thing left for you to do is try to insult LOL, pity. Ray Keene does not claim to know anything firsthand, and Karpov video makes no statement about Geller's move, it just agrees with what I originally wrote. Sorry you cannot accept the simple fact I presented, your many posts only show absurd unreasonableness.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 21 ·
Now on DVD