|Mar-21-05|| ||RookFile: Nice game by Reshevsky. |
|Jul-03-05|| ||calman543: Can't black continue with Rcc8?|
|Jul-03-05|| ||Happypuppet: After Rcc8, you'll have difficulty stopping mate threats without loss of material following Rxf7. (threatening Rxg7+ Kh8 Rh7+ Kg8 Qg7#)|
|May-21-07|| ||Helios727: If black plays 20. -, Qxd4, does white follow with 21. Bb2 Qd8 22. Bxf6 ? Or does he play 22. e5 ?|
|Oct-02-08|| ||TheaN: <Helios727>
More or less a rhetorical question: after <20....Qxd4? 21.Bb1? Qxd1 22.Rxd1> White has no compensation. <20....Qxd4? 21.e5!> and Black is not going to stop both exf6 and Bh7†.
|Apr-08-09|| ||WeakSquare: 26...Qxa3??? What a move!! At last, Bobby gets punished for pawn-grabbing. Should've happened more often.|
|Apr-10-09|| ||WeakSquare: This game shows how much Fischer valued material. He played Qe7 to protect the pawn, and later after he lost the pawn to 27.Bg5, he played ...Qa3?? to get even.|
|Apr-10-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: Kasparov says that with 26....Qe6, conceeding a pawn, Fischer could have set up a light square blockade and offered terrific resistance.|
|May-08-09|| ||Eyal: In a way, Fischer deviates here for the worse from a game he played a year earlier: F Thorbergsson vs Fischer, 1960 reached the same position on move 10, only with white's knight on e5 rather than d2; and there Fischer played 10...dxc4 (which would have led to the same here) 11.Nxc4 Nxc4 12.Bxc4 Qc7 13.Qe2 e5 14.Bb2 e4.|
|May-08-09|| ||Eyal: <If black plays 20. -, Qxd4, does white follow with 21. Bb2 Qd8 22. Bxf6 ? Or does he play 22. e5 ?> |
<20....Qxd4? 21.e5! and Black is not going to stop both exf6 and Bh7+>
It's a bit more complicated than that, actually. After 20...Qxd4 21.e5 Black can try 21...R(either one)d8 22.exf6 Qxd3, but White wins with 23.Rd2 (Mednis). Black may save himself, however, with 21...Rxc1! 22.Qxc1 (22.Bh7+ Nxh7 23.Qxd4 Rxe1 and Black has too much material for the queen) 22...Ng4 23.hxg4 Qxd3 and White's weak pawns should allow a draw.
Therefore, Kasparov recommends in OMGP 4 instead 21.Bb2 Qd8 22.Rxf6!! gxf6 23.Qh5:
click for larger view
Claiming White has a winning attack. For example: 23...Rc5 (to block the long diagonal with the rook)24.Qh6 Re5 25.Bb5! Rf8 26.Ng3!! hxg3 (26...Rxb5 27.e5!) 27.Re3 (without the insertion of 25.Bb5 Rf8, Black would save himself here by 26...Bf5!! 27.Bxe5 Rxe5) Rg5(!) 28.Bxf6 Qd1+(!) 29.Bf1 Qh5 30.Qxg5+ Qxg5 31.Bxg5, and despite all the trickery Black is left with what seems to be a hopeless endgame; or 23...Nc6 (to block the long diagonal with the knight) 24.Bb5! Ne5 25.Rd1 Qe7 26.Bxe8 Rxe8 27.Qxh4 where White regains the exchange and is left with a very big advantage; or 23...Nc4 24.Bxc4 Bxc4 25.Qg4+ Kf8 26.Qxh4 Re6 27.Ne3 Ke8 28.Qh8+ Kd7 29.Rd1+ Rd6 30.Rxd6+ Kxd6 31.Nxc4+ Kc5 32.Qxd8 Rxd8 33.Ne3.
After the insertion of 20...Bb3 21.Qd2, 21...Qxd4 22.Bb2 is not so good for White anymore, because in the line 22...Qc5 23.e5 he doesn't have the strong continuation Qh5 after the black knight retreats. But now 22.e5 should be winning - with the queen on d2, 22... Rxc1 loses to 23.exf6, and 22...Red8 fails this time to 23.exf6 Qxd3 24.Re8+! (Mednis). 22...Qd5 (or Qc3/d8) loses the exchange to 23.Bf5! (but not 23.exf6? Rxe1 24.Qxe1 Qxd3).
|Jul-09-11|| ||savagerules: 16...h5?? Is this another case of Bobby forced to make a weakening move because he was fiddling with the h pawn while analyzing the position like what happened in another game of his when he was twirling the h pawn around absentmindedly and forgot about touch move. But since none of the genius kibitzers here mentioned this horrible move maybe I'm just an idiot patzer. Since Fischer went down without a fight after this I'm leaning toward my version.|
|Jul-09-11|| ||TheMacMan: h5 and h4 weakened the g3 square, notice whites knight on f1, so he was investing ideas on the queenside... and no its not a horrible move, this game could have been draw if fischer would have played Qe6 instead of Qxa3|
|Jul-09-11|| ||TheMacMan: * i meant "investing ideas on the kingside".. not queenside of course|
|Mar-19-13|| ||minibikeguy: I imagine Sammy was very happy to get this fairly simple win.... I would have played it out if I were Fischer.|
|Jul-16-13|| ||RookFile: It's sort of a gambit for the next game. Fischer resigns, as if to say: "You only won because of a crude blunder." He didn't want Reshevsky to enjoy the next 10 to 15 moves and increase his confidence level.|
|Jul-17-13|| ||HeMateMe: Isn't this more aggressive than the usual Reshevsky style?|
|Apr-18-16|| ||morfishine: Fischer's shortest loss vs serious competition|
|Sep-07-16|| ||PawnSac: < HeMateMe: Isn't this more aggressive than the usual Reshevsky style? >|
The Fischer mystique can sometimes overshadow our overall impressions of his opponents, but make no mistake about it. Reshevsky was also a child prodigy with an impressive performance history. He could be quite aggressive and was a champion in his own right. I think it is dishonest to reality and the facts to not let the games stand as they are. Reshevski, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov, and a few others were all capable of some amazing tho not so perfect wins.
|Sep-07-16|| ||perfidious: <prawnsnack: The Fischer mystique can sometimes overshadow our overall impressions of his opponents, but make no mistake about it. Reshevsky was also a child prodigy with an impressive performance history....>|
As opposed to being a prodigy who was unimpressive?
<.....I think it is dishonest to reality and the facts to not let the games stand as they are. Reshevski, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov, and a few others were all capable of some amazing tho not so perfect wins.>
Who is being 'dishonest to reality', whatever that is?
We are all of us capable of playing less than perfect chess, as certain self-styled pundits relentlessly remind us at every turn.
|Jul-21-18|| ||Saniyat24: <perfidious> was "prawnsack" deliberate?|
|Jul-21-18|| ||perfidious: It was.|
|Jul-21-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: When I was a kid we once went to a book dump store. I quickly gathered five of the thickest chess books I could lay my hands on, one of them was 'My Seven Chess Prodigies'. |
My father did not want to buy into it, but when I said: "Only 25 guilders!", the books were mine. I was in heaven, because I only had two books about chess by then. And they had been pretty expensive. He could not believe the books were that cheap.
At home I was puzzled by this hard cover. It were the 70s, but the book of the 'prodigies' seemed to have traveled straight from the fifties. While the other books had a modern 60s/70s cover.
I knew Fischer, but who the herk were those other guys!?? It kind of annoyed me, because the other books were about chess!