|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-15-04 | | Whitehat1963: Reshevsky beats Fischer in the opening of the day, his own game! |
 |
| Jun-15-04 | | zb2cr: Yes, but where did Fischer go wrong? Up through about move 22 if feels fairly even, but then somehow Black starts slipping. I can't put a finger on it exactly. |
|
| Jun-15-04 | | Whitehat1963: I can't either, but I think that after 30...Qe8, Bobby wasn't counting on 31. Nxd6. It seems to go south for him at that point. By white's 34th and 35th, Reshevsky seems to have a clear advantage. And you've got to love the clever finish! How does Crafty evaluate the position after 30...Qe8? |
|
Jun-15-04
 | | Chessical: A game to remind us that Fischer did not always play perfectly. Here he loses control of the centre and is crushed by Reshevsky. He never played this rare variation again. Minev, - Hecht, Varna 1962 had gone: <11...Nc6> 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bh4 e5 14.d5 Nb8 15.Qe2 Nbd7 and black drew. <29.g4!> is an attractive sacrificial blow which effectively finishes off Fischer. Fischer obviously hated losing to Reshevsky, or he would not have not fought on to the bitter end in a hopeless endgame. |
|
Jun-15-04
 | | Benzol: It's interesting how Reshevsky's h-pawn holds the g file tripletts so Fischer couldn't play 56... f3+, 57. b4 xb3+, 58.bxc3 g8 59.xb4 and White's b-pawn is the winner. |
|
Jun-15-04
| | Benzol: Correction that should be 58.axb3 not bxc3. |
|
Jun-15-04
 | | tpstar: <Chessical> Brilliant overview! You smart people should talk much more, whereas I should talk much less. This must be the most un-Fischer-like game I have ever seen = conventional opening, no dynamic counterplay, undoubling White's Pawns, Bad Knight vs. Good Bishop, wasting time, pushed around, material losses, tripled Pawns (!) and playing out a dead lost endgame. As a Nimzo-Indian fan, let me add that Black must prevent f4 or else get smushed. One exception is when Black can meet f4 with ... f5 Botvinnik vs Reshevsky, 1948. So in this system Black should try to advance ... h6 & ... g5, then ... Ng6 to control f4. Having said that, I'm not sure how Black could ever accomplish this once that mighty Knight got to f5. <Benzol> Good pick-up about Reshevsky's joke at the end = 56. Kc3! because (as you said) 56 ... Rf3+ leads to a lost K&P endgame for Black despite being 2 Pawns up! Perhaps we are too severe when people lose, and too unimpressed when they win. Looks like even the best have an off day. |
|
| Jun-16-04 | | zb2cr: Hmmm. So besides the variation on move 11, we can't point to anything that clearly is a game-loser for Fischer prior to move 29? How might he have played to keep Reshevsky from being in position to play what <Chessical> referred to as an "attractive" pawn sacrifice on move 29? |
|
Jun-17-04
| | Chessical: <zb2cr> I agree with <Tpstar's> verbal anlysis. This seems to be a game lost out of the opening, at least at this level. I think 12...Nbd7 led to difficulties, instead <12...h6> 13.Bh4 Qe7 14.Nd2 Nbd7 may be preferable. Black's constant problem is his weak K-side, and his inability to generate any counter play aginst the dominant center. Fischer to attempt to avoid weaknesses is reduced to shuffling his pieces 15.Nf8 then 16.Ng6. Fischer cannot challenge Reshevsky's centre. He lacks space to effectively manoeuver and is reduced to <25...Rg8> (to cover his g pawn to move his knight) in the place of any more effective ideas. He has to sit and wait for his opponent to unlease his attack from behind the wave of central pawns. I believe that bringing the R back to the centre with 28...Re8 was no better (<28...Re8> 29.g4 Nxg4 30.Nxg7) than 28...b5. By move 29 Fischer was attempting a deperate diversion. He must have hoped Reshevsky was going to play something like <29.Qxb5> Nxe4 30.Bxg7 Rxg7 31.Nxg7 Kxg7? Then he may have had a few swindling chances. Reshevsky,however, knew this type of potstion very well both as white and black and he knew he could continue to build up a huge K-side attack which would yield more. Reshevshky's position is overwhelming after <29.g4!>. Retreating the N loses, <29...Ne8> 30.Nxh6 gxh6 31.Rxh6+ Kxh6 32.g5+ |
|
| Jun-18-04 | | Whitehat1963: <Chessical> You said that Fischer <never played this rare variation again.> But, in fact, he did ... against Reshevsky even! Reshevsky vs Fischer, 1970 |
|
Jun-18-04
| | Chessical: I was unaware of that game, thank you. |
|
| Jan-18-05 | | JohnnyRambo: As I recall, the thought was that
after 9. Qc2, they thought Fischer
should have played 9.... Bxf3. You
notice that in the Fischer vs. Reshevsky game from 1970 that Reshevsky varied first with 9. Be2...
he was not eager to give Fischer
a second chance to play 9.... Bxf3. |
|
| Jan-18-05 | | JohnnyRambo: JohnnyRambo: Actually, it's humorous that this is called the "Fischer" variation of the Nimzo, when you consider that Reshevsky played this opening variation against Alekhine in 1938, varying with 9. Bxe4 in that game. This was a few years before Fischer was even born. It's not like Alekhine was some fringe player... |
|
| Jul-03-05 | | calman543: So what happens after Kxh5? |
|
| Jul-03-05 | | iron maiden: Then Qh7#. |
|
Jul-22-06
 | | KingG: Fischer doesn't play very well, but i still like the way Reshevsky patiently builds up his attack, it's quite instructive. It's a bit strange that at no point does Fischer play ...c5, which is quite thematic in this opening. As a result, White gains a massive mobile pawn centre, and Black has no counter play. |
|
| Sep-12-07 | | drukenknight: was this game really lost before move 30? What if 43....Nc3? Just beginning to look at this... |
|
| Sep-12-07 | | D4n: It just goes to show that Nimzo-Indian, Fischer Variation isn't just good for Fischer.. |
|
| Sep-12-07 | | RookFile: Reshevsky was awesome with white in the Nimzo Indian, and scored a lot of wins over big league opposition. |
|
| Oct-14-07 | | Erdkunde: <drukenknight> 43. ...Nc3 44. Re5 seems to prevent most of Black's drawing or forking ideas; e.g. 1) 45. ...Nd2+ 46. Rxd2 Rxd2 47. e7 and Black can't stop White from Queening; 2)45. ...Rg5+ 46. Kf3 Rg2 47. Bxc3 again leads to a lost position...if Black tries some other move then White simply captures on c3 next and prepares to Queen his pawn. But it does look complex and would offer Black definite counterchances if White weren't as good a player as Reshevsky, or was in time trouble. |
|
| Apr-15-08 | | mistreaver: Hmm i am maybe bad but how can white capitalize on advantage if black just moves his rook from f5 to e5 or king from h7 to h8 around move 57/58? |
|
| Apr-29-08 | | Jim Bartle: Was this game played with an adjournment? |
|
| Aug-29-08 | | Helios727: Back then, I think all the US Championship games had adjournments after the first time control. |
|
Aug-30-08
 | | Pawn and Two: <Jim Bartle & Helios727> Yes, this game was adjourned. The sealed move was 42.Re4. Later, Reshevsky indicated this move was not the best, and recommended 42.Qd7 Rc7 43.Re4, as being more precise. |
|
| Sep-25-08 | | zb2cr: To belatedly answer <mistreaver>'s question: "Hmm i am maybe bad but how can white capitalize on advantage if black just moves his rook from f5 to e5 or king from h7 to h8 around move 57/58?" It seems to me that if Black plays 58. ... Kh8, White can play 59. Qd3, Kh7; 60. Qxb5, Rxb5+; 61. Kxb5 with a straightforward Queening race that White wins. The tripled Black Pawns would get picked off from the rear and White mates. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
