|Jun-12-04|| ||kevin86: Has a king ever been as "castled" as Fischer's in this one? |
|Aug-19-04|| ||offramp: 29,Qe4 looks like a killer with the pin on the rook and the threat of Rh7 but Spassky comes up with a brilliant riposte. |
|Apr-13-06|| ||offramp: I am surprised Fischer didn't play 29.Nxe5 in this game; I can't really see what black's compensation for the exchange would be. Is the idea to play ...Bxa3?|
|Apr-13-06|| ||offramp: 31.Rf2 is a moves that seems to serve little purpose. But Fischer never made meaningless moves; so what's the idea?|
It seems to be that white wants to play Nf4, to which black would probably exchange queens and play ...e5. Then Nd5+, Kd8 Nf5 looks very good for white - with those knights on great outposts. But black can play ...Rxd5 and ...Bb5, skewering the rooks. So first white has to get the rook off f1, hence Rf2.
|Apr-13-06|| ||zev22407: In the book "Both sides of the chessboard" Nei wrote that if 29)N:e5 d6:e5 30)N-f3 e6:f5! 31)e4:f5 and now B:a3 32)R-d1 B:b2+! and black has a deadly attack.
R Byrne in the same book sugested 29)f5:e6 f7:e6 30)N:e5 d6:e5 and black has the threat B:a3 and control on the important squares.|
|Apr-13-06|| ||offramp: <zev22407> Thanks for that. Fischer may not have spent too long analysing the line. He may have just thought that it was wrong in general to open up the position for the two bishops and give black lots of counterplay.|
|Apr-13-06|| ||zev22407: Fischer was leading the match maybe he didn't want to take risks|
|Jun-26-06|| ||TaricHall: I really like black play up through move 31. I wonder if Spassky could have retained his bishop pair and opened the position up?|
|Aug-13-06|| ||Helios727: This appears to be the 5th and last time Fischer employed the Rauzer attack.|
|Aug-13-06|| ||tTinker: tTinker: tTinker: This is obvious, but you don't surrender a bishop for a knight without some kind of compensation in my experience. Fischer clearly saw something, and that exchange could have had surprise value. |
Rf2 looks very solid. In some lines it takes it off the square of the black queens, prepares to double up on the f file, and prevents a very future a3, b2 by black.
This is an attack Fischer used? It appears he becomes the one defending to me.
|Aug-23-06|| ||Helios727: Any attack can end up turning around and cause the attacker to become the defender.|
|Aug-23-06|| ||RookFile: Tinker, I'm afraid that Fischer and Tal do not agree with you. Now, you can disagree with these titans of chess - and you have the right to think independantly - but, odds are, these guys know what they are doing.|
Tal vs R Byrne, 1966
The Fischer vs. Spassky game was a little odd, because we see Fischer as the one with the knights battling the bishops. That didn't happen a lot.
The game was very complex: although you may feel that Fischer was defending, apparently Fischer missed a shot with 35. Nf4 that might have given him an advantage.
|Aug-25-07|| ||euripides: Spassky's nice get-out with 39...Rc8 recalls a trap he sprang on Fischer six years before: |
Fischer vs Spassky, 1966
|Feb-29-08|| ||Knight13: <kevin86: Has a king ever been as "castled" as Fischer's in this one?> Oui. In de pionformatie Kh2 P@g2 P@g3 P@h3 de koning schijnt veiliger te zijn.|
|May-04-09|| ||WhiteRook48: look at the king and rook after 40. Rb1|
|Jul-08-11|| ||NARC: Is 23. ... d5 followed by possibly Bxa3 an idea?|
|Jul-08-11|| ||TheMacMan: ...d5 loses to exd5 and nxd5 blacks attack would be too slow, white is faster.|
|Jul-13-12|| ||offramp: <Helios727: This appears to be the 5th and last time Fischer employed the Rauzer attack.> |
Yes, well. He only played one more serious game with black in his career.
|Jan-06-13|| ||perfidious: < Helios727: This appears to be the 5th and last time Fischer employed the Rauzer attack.>|
Not so-Fischer employed it one final time, in the 20th game (Fischer vs Spassky, 1972).
|Jun-05-14|| ||Howard: Kasparov says briefly in Volume IV of MGP that Fischer missed a win in Game 18...|
Anyone wanna consult with a silicon colleague ? I don't have one yet.
|Jun-05-14|| ||Petrosianic: The common wisdom has always been that both players missed probable wins in this game.|