< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
|Aug-14-03|| ||ughaibu: This is one of my favourite Fischer games, look at the position after move 23. I dont know why it's described as a Reti opening, QGD Ragozin sounds about right. |
|Aug-14-03|| ||sleepkid: I'm not sure why this would be one of your favourite Fischer games. . . unless you enjoy seeing Fischer lose. Maybe it should be one of your favourite Pachman games? (has anyone ever read checkmate in Prague? Was it any good?) |
|Aug-14-03|| ||ughaibu: Sleepkid: I consider it a game of both players but in this one Fischer produces the ideas. I suspect he was under the influence of and trying to play like Tal at the time. |
|Aug-14-03|| ||AgentRgent: <unless you enjoy seeing Fischer lose> Nail hit on head!.. film at 11! ;-) |
|Jun-11-04|| ||soberknight: beautiful pawn square: way to occupy the center with all white pawns! |
|Sep-06-04|| ||Honza Cervenka: 24...Qg1+ was a mistake. After 24...exd5! white seems to be in huge troubles. Of course, he cannot take the Knight for 25.Qxc6 Qg1+ 26.Kd2 Qxf2+ 27.Kd3 Qe2+ 28.Kc3 Qxb2+ 29.Kd3 Qxb3+ 30.Qc3 f2!! and black wins. Also 25.exd5 Ne7 26.Bc4 Nf5!! 27.d6+ Kh8 28.Qd3 (28.dxc7? Rh1+ 29.Bf1 Nh4 threatening Ng2#; 28.Bf1 Qg1! ) 28...Ng3!! (much better than 28...Rh1+ 29.Qf1 Rxf1+) is lost for white. |
|Apr-17-05|| ||aw1988: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp... |
|Apr-17-05|| ||whatthefat: What a fanstastic game! The pawn structure at the 24th move is highly unorthodox, and as Honza pointed out 24...exd5! seems critical. Had Fischer seen it then the sacrifice 17...g4!? seems fully justified, as I see no errors from moves 17-24. After the inaccuracy, play was pretty much forced towards a winning endgame for Pachman. |
|Apr-17-05|| ||Kangaroo: A typical game for young Fischer. He had won many impressive games, yet being in trouble, he would simply "forget" to finish the meaningless resistance. Moves 32 to 40 were completely unnecessary and Ludec Pachman before 1960 was a very tough chellenge for Bobby. Even by 1966 they had been tied - according to the CG statistic! |
|Apr-28-05|| ||Gypsy: <I have not lived through many games as the one we played Santiago: We were together at the lead of the tournament, moreover Bobby also wanted to revenge his defeat from Mar del Plata. He sacrified a piece and immediately followed by sacrificing a rook. It looked awfully close to a mate, but my king ran accross the whole chesssboard to safety. Bobby wiped pieces of the board, and bolted without first signing his resignation.> Ludek Pachman|
Two other games from Santiago 1959 are intimately tied to this one -- L Sanchez vs Pachman, 1959 and Jauregui Carlos vs Fischer, 1959. The whole story is there.
|Jul-26-05|| ||Calli: 17...g4?! Pachman wrote "This move took the breath out of me, ...Is it possible to sacrifice that much? Fischer spent more than an hour before convincing himself that 17...Bxf1 18.dxc6 Bxg2 does not work, for example 19.Kxg2 g4 20.Ne5 Qh4 and here I planned 21.Kf1! [21.Rh1? Qh3+ 22.Kg1 Ng5 is dangerous for white.] 21...Qxh2 22.Ke2!! and white beats the attack either after 22...Qxf2+ 23.Kd3; or after 23...Nxf2 24.Rf1 g3 25.Nf3!"|
A terrific game to analyse.
|Jan-27-06|| ||Fianchettino: Just throwing pieces into the melting pot to start an hazardous attack is not always enough, even if you are the legendary Bobby Fischer. Pachman proves as too hard-bitten to let Fischer get away with this.|
|Jan-27-06|| ||Steppenwolf: Pachman completely outplays Fischer in this game and give him a good lesson on pragmatic chess.|
|Jan-27-06|| ||Steppenwolf: 24. Ke1! On his long combination, Fischer simply forgot that white could bring back the bishop to f1!|
|Jan-27-06|| ||Sneaky: Steppenwolf, indeed Fischer did get a good lesson here. But Bobby's goose would have been cooked after |
25.f1 xf1+! 26. d2 (xf1? h1#) xf2+
By the way, this was the last time that Pachman ever beat Fischer.
|Jan-27-06|| ||Pawn and Two: <Fischer simply forgot that white could bring back the bishop to f1>|
Actually, this is what Bobby was playing for. If Pachman had played 25. Bf1?? then Qxf1+ 26. Kd2 Rxf2+ 27. Ke3 Re2+ 28. Kd3 Qf2 29. Qd2 Rxd2 30. Rxd2 Qg3 and Black will win.
As pointed out by Honza Cervenka, 24 Q-g1+ is a mistake. Black should have played 24. exd5!, with good winning chances.
|Jan-28-06|| ||Steppenwolf: No, I meant Ke1 protects white from the ROOK move to h1, Rh1+ Bf1. Obviously if the queen gives a check to g1,you walk away with Kd2. That is why Fischer forgot about the bishop.|
|Jan-28-06|| ||Pawn and Two: I do not think Fischer forgot about the Bishop.
When Fischer played 23. f3, White was forced to play 24. Ke1 or be mated.
At that point, when playing 23. f3, I believe Fischer saw that if he next played 24. Rh1+, then Bf1 would be 100% forced and Black would be busted.
Instead, I believe Fischer was planning on the Bf1 defense, but only in response to his move 24. Q-g1+. Black would then have a winning position, as I have indicated in my previous post.
Fischer's attack was very interesting and nearly succeeded. Certainly, one could not say that Pachman outplayed Fischer. It is more of a case where Fischer loses the game by a mistake.
Note that if Fischer had played 24. e6xd5! instead of 24. Qg5-g1+, it is then Black with all the winning chances.
|Jan-29-06|| ||Steppenwolf: Looking at the game again, one can only conclude that Pachman completely outplayed Fischer in all phases of the game.|
|Jan-29-06|| ||Pawn and Two: Steppenwolf, you state that Pachman completely outplayed Fischer in all phases of this game. |
However, after Pachman played 24. Ke1, his position was extremely unfavorable and probably lost. For Pachman to win after 24. Ke1, he had to rely on Fischer making a blunder. Hardly a good example of completly outplaying your opponent.
If you do believe that Pachman has outplayed Fischer in the position after move 24. Ke1, then perhaps we should play a few moves from that point.
For Black, I will suggest 24. exd5. If you wish to defend White's position, how do you respond to 24. exd5?
|Jan-29-06|| ||whatthefat: <Steppenwolf>
As <Honza> pointed out above (and <Pawn and Two> has reiterated), black has a winning position on move 24, suggesting that Fischer's sacrificial attack was sound. Not taking anything away from Pachman's excellent defence, black having a winning position would obviously counter the statement that he was outplayed <in all phases of the game>.
|Jan-31-06|| ||Steppenwolf: 24...exd5? 25. exd5 simply. That will help white even more. White is winning all through this game. Pachman dominated Fischer easily.|
|Jan-31-06|| ||whatthefat: But you still haven't refuted Honza's line of:
25.exd5 Ne7 26.Bc4 Nf5!! 27.d6+ Kh8 28.Qd3 (28.dxc7? Rh1+ 29.Bf1 Nh4 threatening Ng2#; 28.Bf1 Qg1! ) 28...Ng3!! (much better than 28...Rh1+ 29.Qf1 Rxf1+) is lost for white.
If you can do that, <then> I'll accept your statement!
|Jan-31-06|| ||Pawn and Two: My choice for Black's next move is 25. Ne7!
Black's position is winning. I await your next move.
|Feb-08-06|| ||Pawn and Two: Steppenwolf, I have not received your next move.
To summarize this for others, after Pachman's move 24. Ke1, I stated there were good winning chances for Fischer had he replyed 24. exd5!!
You disagreed and stated that 25. exd5 would be winning for White.
I responded to 25. exd5 with Ne7 and stated that Black was winning.
Since my posting of 25. Ne7, I have had Fritz 9 analyse all possible replies by White. The result: Black is clearly winning in all variations.
Here are some possible continuations with Fritz's evaluations after White's 26th move, unless otherwise noted.
(1). 24. Ke1 exd5 25. exd5 Ne7 26. Qxc7 Qg1+ - mate in 15.
(2). 24. Ke1 exd5 25. exd5 Ne7 26. Bc4 b5! - Fritz evaluation (-10.41) (16 ply). Black's 26th move b5!, is stronger than Honza's suggestion of 26. Nf5, which is also winning.
(3). 24. Ke1 exd5 25. exd5 Ne7 26. Qc4 Rh1+ 27. Qf1 Rxf1+ 28. Bxf1 Nxd5 - Fritz evaluation after move 28. (-6.11) (ply 18).
(4). 24. Ke1 exd5 25. exd5 Ne7 26. b4 axb4 - Fritz evaluation (-6.70) (18 ply).
(5). 24. Ke1 exd5 25. exd5 Ne7 26. d6 Qg1+ 27. Kd2 Rxf2 28. Kc3 Nd5+ - Fritz evaluation after move 28. (-13.19) (16 ply).
(6). 24. Ke1 exd5 25. exd5 Ne7 26. Qe4 Rf4 - Fritz evaluation - (-7.52) (16 ply).
Black has a won game in all of these variations.
If you would like to see additional analysis by Fritz, please let me know.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·