< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-26-08|| ||Calli: It seems that 17.Kh2 wastes a tempo since he plays Nxd4 anyway. Better might be 17.Nxd4 exd4 18.Bd2 threatening a3.|
|Jan-26-08|| ||Resignation Trap: (continued)
click for larger view
After 14.Be3: <RJF> <<>14.Qd5 would lose outright to 14...Rb5 15.Qxc6 Rxc5 16.Qa8 Be6 17.Qb7 Rc7, winning the queen.<>>
After 16.Qc1: <RJF> <<>Unpleasant as it is, 16.Qb1 was probably the best move.<>>
After 17.Kh2: <RJF> <<>After this it is all over but for the demonstration. What White should have played is 17.Nxd4 exd4 18.Bd2, relying on the threat of a3. however, Black's course would have been 18...Qb6 and if 19.a3 b3; or if not 19.a3, then 19...d3, etc.<>>
After 18.Nxd4: <RJF> <<>A bitter pill to swallow. Black's strategy, beginning on the tenth move, has triumphed. White is left with only bad alternatives. Since there was no way to defend the c-pawn, White was forced to undouble Black's e-pawns and unleash the full fury of his position.<>>
After 20.a3: <RJF> <<>White plays the last part of the game ingeniously.<>>
After 21...Qb6: <RJF> <<>Far stronger than 21...Rxc1 22.bxa5, giving White chances to hold out.<>>
After 22.Qe3: <RJF> <<>If 22.Qf4 f6 wins a piece.<>>
After 24...d2: <RJF> <<> >Resigns< For after 25.Red1 Be2.<>>
|Jan-26-08|| ||Resignation Trap: <Calli> Bobby agrees with you! :)|
|Jan-26-08|| ||Calli: <RT> Of course! :->|
Meanwhile, excuse me while I drool http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Chess-Revie...
|Jan-26-08|| ||keypusher: <Calli> Wow. Was 1970 the year that Chess Review merged with Chess Life? Have to admire Horowitz et al. for launching a magazine in 1933, in the depths of the Depression.|
|Jan-26-08|| ||Calli: <KP> Merger was sometime late in 1969.
The 1970 volume is Chess Life and Review which was the name till 1975 (?)|
|Jan-26-08|| ||Phony Benoni: <keypusher> <Calli> Chess Life and Review ran from Nov. 1969 through Dec. 1979.|
I was a subscriber to Chess Review before the merger, and still remember the October 1969 issue with a very tired-looking Horowitz on the cover and the caption, "Message of progress". My heart sank when I saw that, and though I came to recognize the excellence of Chess Life (those were the Hochberg years) I still missed the quirky qualities of Horowitz's magazine.
|Jan-26-08|| ||Calli: <PhonyB> You have much better memory that I do. err what was I thinking about? :-> Oh yeah, 1979. Guess I thought the name didn't last very long after "Big Al" died but evidently that is wrong.|
I see that the USCF sells CDs of the entire run in PDF format. Anybody know if they are any good?
|Feb-03-08|| ||Calli: Auction ended. Only $3,216.66 for the set.
<kp> Was that you with the winning bidding? ;=>
|Feb-18-10|| ||jerseybob: 10.e5? is a lemon. 9 out of 10 kibitzers at the Friday night rapids might play it, but the whole Soviet team in its prime? Something that doesn't self-destruct the white center, something like maybe 10.Qd2 or 10.Ne2, has got to be better.|
|Feb-19-10|| ||JeanGiskan: Absolutely agree with Jerseybob. After 10. Qd2 White is ok. After 5...d6 White has many options, the most common might be something like in the kings indian attack: c3,Nbd2,e4 and Re1. Famous chinese gm Wang Yue (Black) recently lost against a russian player after 5...d6. Though it was just a blitz game
it is interesting to mention that after 6.e4 Wang Yue didn t even play c5 but maintained symmetry by responding with 6..e5 (Vitiugov-Wang Yue Rus-Chn Blitz match August 2009 1-0)|
|Feb-20-10|| ||jerseybob: JeanGiskan: Could you post that score?|
|Feb-21-10|| ||AnalyzeThis: I think Fischer was just being provocative with his notes, especially with his one regarding 5.....d6. Using Fischer's logic, White might have tried 6. Kh1, so that after black's pawn move, it would be white varying with advantage. (Would 6....Kh8 be the best reply?)|
|Mar-09-17|| ||AylerKupp: <AnalyzeThis> No. If 6.Kh1 Kh8 then 7.Kg1 Kg8 8.Kh1 and a draw by repetition.
At least using my logic. ;-)|
|Mar-09-17|| ||maxi: "Nine out of ten Grandmasters, including Petrosian, Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov, would have played this move, yet, it loses by force." It seems to me that by using this peculiar composition Fischer was just trying to irk the Russians, as it was his wont.|
|Mar-09-17|| ||Petrosianic: Keres addressed that and other comments as evidence of Fischer's lack of objectivity at that time. Fischer also said that his games at the Western Open with A players were better than games played at the Piatigorsky Cup. That's too absurd to be annoying, it's just sad.|
The thing is when Fischer said something dopey, people stood on their heads to try to find some way to agree with it. THAT part really was funny.
|Mar-10-17|| ||Petrosianic: Here are Kere's comments on this and other comments from around this time. The moral is that you can learn a lot from Fischer's <MOVES>, but take his words with extreme caution. They were unduly tainted with Personal-Desire-Stated-As-Fact.|
<KERES>: <One of the outstanding events of 1963, the Piatigorsky Cup tournament, not least from the viewpoint of creative chess thought, [Fischer] boycotted when his unwarranted financial demands had been rejected by the committee. In Chess life he informed us bluntly that almost all the games played by him in the little Western Open were better than any of the games in the Piatigorsky Cup Tourney with the exception of Najdorf's win over Keres. Comment is superfluous! and how this assertion is to be reconciled with his steement in the same chess magazine "My opponents make good moves too - sometimes I do not take these things into consideration" puzzles me.
About his fellow grandmasters, likewise, Bobby has hardly altered his opinions since 1962. He repeatedly writes that Petrosian and Botvinnik have little idea of chess. After 1. P-K4 P-K4; 2. N-KB3, N-QB3; 3. B-B4, N-B3; 4. N-N5, P-Q4; 5. PxP, N-QR4; 6. P-Q3, P-KR3; 7. N-KB3, P-K5 he seriously believed that Bronstein, in continuing 8. PxP did not sacrifice a piece but blundered it away.
In commenting on the move 10. P-K5 in the Reinhard-Fischer game, he writes "Nine out of ten grandmasters, including Petrosian, Botvinnik, Keres and Smyslov would have played this move, yet it loses by force." Or about his fifteenth move as Black in the game Oster-Fischer: "Once again, nine out of ten grandmasters would have continued with 15...N-Q2." These instances could be multiplied.
With such a mentality he can hardly be surprised if, in his next serious attempt at the highest honors, he again falls short of complete success.
The overestimation of his own abilities has its consequence, not only that he underestimates his rivals, but that he often poses his readers insoluble problems in his comments on games. After 1. P-Q4, N-KB3 his note to 2. N-KB3 "A rather common mistake" ... or the conclusion of one note "... which only proves again the weakness of White's first move 1. P-Q4" makes no sense to me. Nor indeed does the note after 1. N-KB3, N-KB3; 2. P-KN3 P-KN3; 3. B-N2, B-N2; 4. O-O, O-O; 5. P-Q3, P-q3 in the game Reinhard-Fishcer: "Believe it or not - Black stands better! Now whatever White does Black will vary it and get an assymetrical position and have the superior positio due to his better pawn structure." We just don't believe it.> -- August 1964
There's a similar problem with taking Fred Reinfeld too seriously. Fred had a tendency to make certain opening lines sound worse than they were, just because he didn't want beginners playing them. That, coupled with Reinfeld's love of Miniatures might easily lead a reader to think that if an opponent played those lines that he should fall apart in a few moves, and then learn to his disappointment that the line had a lot more going for it than he thought.
|Mar-10-17|| ||maxi: Reinfeld is soo evangelical. Somebody plays Nb1d2 and he says it is poor development and the cause of the loss of the game. When I was learning chess I used one of his books and it confused me a lot. Later I would find that Tal or Petrosian had played the same move!|
During those years around 1963 Fischer said a lot of weird things. Then as the sixties and him grew older he became more circumspect and wiser. Later in his life, well, we all know what happened...
When he was around twenty he also said that he had refuted the King's Gambit, and that Lasker was a coffeehouse player and other ridiculous charges against that magnificent player.
|Mar-10-17|| ||Petrosianic: 10. e5 is indeed a weak move that probably 0 out of 10 GM's would play. But I also don't think much of 17. Kh2 (pointless) and 18. Nxd4, after which the White QB has no good squares.|
It might be better to take with the Bishop. After 17. Bxd4 exd4 18. Bf1, Black is noticeably superior, yes. The chances of an A player holding it against a GM are probably zero, but at least White's not getting totally blown off the board, and might be able to hold out a respectable length of time.
That, I think, is the impetus behind the "9 out of 10 GM's" comment. Fischer beat an A Player, was sorry that he wasn't at Piatigorsky, and so tried to convince himself he'd actually beaten a GM. He was very transparent about such things.
|Mar-10-17|| ||Petrosianic: <Reinfeld is soo evangelical. Somebody plays Nb1d2 and he says it is poor development and the cause of the loss of the game.>|
Yeah, over the years I've gotten to appreciate Reinfeld somewhat. He's enthusiastic, presents the game well, and makes it sound interesting. But there's a lot of stuff he says that you roll your eyes at.
|Mar-10-17|| ||Howard: Likewise with a friend of his---Irving Chernev. And at least a few of his comments have provoked some eye-rolling on my part.|
|Mar-10-17|| ||Petrosianic: Yeah, but Chernev also published some great chess trivia. Further research has discredited some of it, but some of it was really good.|
My most cringeworthy Chernev moment was in a series where he's praising Petrosian. You'd think I'd like that, but he tries to paint Petrosian as this Tal-like rebel who broke rules, violated opening theory and made it work. In one game, Petrosian is black and played a Winawer. After the move 3...Bb4, Chernev wrote "Knights before Bishops, the authorities say!" The idea is that Petrosian is SUCH an iconoclast that he's developing Bishops before Knights! Wow!
EXCEPT, of course that 3... Bb4 is a book move. You're praising him for a BOOK move, fercryinoutloud!
|Mar-10-17|| ||john barleycorn: <1000 Best Short Games of Chess > by Chernev is all I have. and that is enough for me. neither a good commentator nor teacher in my opinion.|
|Mar-10-17|| ||Howard: That most recent comment on Petrosian probably appeared in Chernev's The Golden Dozen I suspect.|
|Mar-10-17|| ||Petrosianic: I've seen it reprinted in a couple of places. I'm not sure where it appeared originally.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·