< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 8 ·
|Oct-26-03|| ||drukenknight: Yes, you are getting the analogy, there is hope yet. Okay Boris is Hutton, FIDE is MT Moore, and Bobby is Bucky. So what was Bucky's mistake...?|
He let go. Do you see it now?
|Oct-26-03|| ||PVS: This is a much discussed game. The consensus is that 33...Rxf1+ was the losing move. I have always considered that Spassky's fine moves, such as 20. d5 did more to win it than Fischer did to lose it. He is supposed to have good drawing chances after 33...bxc5. As is well known, the first half of this event was a disaster for Fischer who switched hotel rooms three or four times complaining of noise. It was Spassky, always the gentleman, who told him to just forget about it and play chess. |
|Oct-26-03|| ||drukenknight: PVS you dont see it? |
|Oct-27-03|| ||Diggitydawg: Well, I guess DK is driving at "letting go" as letting the White K get to c4. Fischer could play 40...Ke5 41.Kd3 c4+ 42.Ke3 Nh6, I think. |
|Oct-27-03|| ||drukenknight: Hey I found my copy of the tournament book! While Dawg is still working on this, it might be fun to see what Spassky says (note: Fischer was the only participant in the tournament who did not contribute to the book)|
Its in english notation, I will try to translate:
After move 33: "To my mind the continuation 33...pxQ gave the best chances for a draw. if white then continues to exchange black after 34 RxR KxR 35 h4 can equalize by means of 35...Nc4 36 Kf2 Nd6...the black K will get to g5 with a draw...
"after the game Fischer stated that he avoided 33...pxQ in view of 34 Rc1 believing that whites advantage was sufficient to win. However black preserved fair chances for draw with 34..c4 35 Rc3 Re6 36 Bf3 Kf6 37 Kf2 g5"
Hmmm, this may help or might not. There are more commentary about the later moves, so hold on...
|Oct-27-03|| ||drukenknight: More comments by Spassky, I think you will find this all so amusing...|
Move 35. "35 h4 This move fixes blacks pawn on the same color as the B and thus fetters the movement of the enemy K."
"39 K-K3. 39 Bd5 would have been more conistent without fear of 39...g5+"
"39...g4 whites task is now easier since he obtains a passed pawn. Stiffer resitance could have been offered by means of 39...Nd6"
he says same thing after blacks 40th:
"It would have been better 40...Nd6 creating an unassailable fortress in the center. In that case the winning plan lay in the march of whites k to the queen side."
ON move 44: "the basic threat posed by white consists in a K advance to the enemy pawn at a7; a maneuver which black is in no position to prevent."
|Oct-27-03|| ||drukenknight: Okay guys time to get those final votes in....I have given you all of Spasky's commentary on the endgame, minus a few meaningless sentences. Come on, what do you think was Bobby's one big mistake?? |
|Oct-27-03|| ||Shadow 812: Interesting endgame, with some subtle touches from Spassky: Okay so where did
Fischer go wrong? I also believe that exchanging Rooks on move 33 was wrong, it was of course difficult to see this at the time, and has required a lot of forensic analysis to determine this. It appears to be universally accepted that 33. Rxf1+ was Fischer's mistake, I personally believe that Fischer has misjudged the position, the resulting endgame is one of those Bishop v Knight
endings, where the Bishop on the open board is the superior piece and gains the necessary tempo moves to overcome the Knight. (To be fair to Fischer it needed accurate play from Spassky to be
able win), but once again, as we keep seeing in endgames, time is of the essence and one tempo is the difference
between winning, drawing or losing. As an example I refer to Fischer's fourth match game against Taimanov in 1971, where the Bishop is superior to the Knight but where precision technique is
required to score the point, finally on
move 50. Spassky played Ba2! avoiding a
trap, if 50. Kxa6 c4 51. Kxa7? Kc7 and Fischer would have been able to draw, however instead of 51. Kxa7? 51. Be4+ will suffice.
|Oct-27-03|| ||drukenknight: Another vote for move 33....
Oh well. Are you ready? Any more suggstions?
|Oct-28-03|| ||thekleinbottle: From "Fundamental Chess Endings" by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht, Copyright 2001, Gambit Chess, p. 140:|
White's winning potential consists of his powerful bishop, kingside majority and a-pawn together with the vulnerability of Black's pawns (especially the g- and a- pawns). Averbakh's evaluation that White is winning was commonly accepted until very recently, when Dvoretsky cast doubt on it by pointing out a hole in an important line which was discovered by Zviagintsev.
***36. Kf2 is more precise according to Averbakh.***
37. Ke3 Kf6 38. Kf4 Nf7 39. Ke3 g5?
***39...Nh6! 40. Kd3 Nf5 41. Kc4 Nxh4 42. Kxc5 Ke5 43. Bb7 Nf5! (Zviagintsev; 43...Kf4? 44. Kb5 Kg3 45. Ka6 Nxg2 46. Kxa7 and Averbakh stops here with ) 44. Kb5 Kd6 45. Ka6 Kc5 46. Kxa7 Kb4= ***
After that the remaining moves are listed, but no annotation is given. Let me know if I've made any typos...it's 1 am and I have to be at work by 7 am... good night... (analysis is of course in between the '***')
|Oct-28-03|| ||ughaibu: Nobody's mentioned that this ending is susceptible to Druken count analysis. |
|Oct-28-03|| ||drukenknight: His only mistake?
He gave up.
Just like Buddy gave up.
|Oct-28-03|| ||drukenknight: Right, I mean where's the winning line? |
|Oct-30-03|| ||Shadow 812: The forensic analysis continues, in my opinion the analysis by thekleinbottle proves just how difficult it was to hold the position, I believe that if Fischer had not exchanged the Rooks on move 33, he may have been able to create some counterplay, because it is
was manifestly obvious that the ending
followed gave Fischer not one iota of any counterplay and forced him into passive defence. (something that was abhorrent to Fischer)
|Oct-30-03|| ||drukenknight: shadow: You are right that Fischer is forced into a passive defense. And you are right that is not to his taste.|
But he appears completely fooled by the position. With a little help from chessbase computer I give you the next 20 moves:
41. Kd3 Ke5
42. Ba8 Kd6
43. Kc4 g4
44. a4 Ng8
45. a5 Nh6
46. Be4 g3
47. Kb5 Ng8
48. Bb1 Nh6
49. Ka6 Kc6
50. Ba2 Nf5
51. Kxa7 Kc7
52. Be6 Nh6
53. a6 c4
54. Bxc4 Nf5
55. h6 Ne7
56. Be6 Nc6+
57. Ka8 Ne5
58. h7 Ng6
59. Ka7 Nh8
60. Bc4 Ng6
|Nov-03-03|| ||Open Defence: I think 16 ..cxd4 .... while that was not a losing mistake it got into a position which gave spassky more winning chances ... :-) |
|Nov-06-03|| ||Eggman: DK, why not just 61.Bf7 Nh8 62.Bh5? Wouldn't the fat lady be singing? |
|Nov-06-03|| ||drukenknight: have no idea, I'm on the road for a few days, dont know if I'll get a chance to look at this till then. you might want to double check those moves, the chess base computer can play some pretty bad moves at the end of a line. |
I.e. if it gives you a line 5 or 6 moves deep, the first couple moves are good but the last one could be bad. You just have to keep plugging away at it.
In the line, I gave, I tried to double check the results it was spitting out the first 8 or 10 moves, but at the end I think I was just taking what it was giving me 5 or 6 moves at a time. there could be some error in there.
|Nov-11-03|| ||drukenknight: Eggman: Hello, you are right, the line above is a horrible endgame, a mutant child whose parentage shall remain undisclosed. |
Looking it over, starting off by gaining the opposition seems better and would not have required much calculation as the time control approaches. Not moving pawns onto the same color as the B would also improve things. Whites h pawn queens on a different color than the B and this may be important
Here is something that looks better:
41. Bg6 Nh6
42. Kd3 Kd5
43. Be4+ Ke5
44. Bb7 Nf7
45. Bf3 Nd6
46. Be2 Nf5
47. g4 Nd6
48. a4 a5
49. Bd1 Kf6
50. Bb3 Kg7
51. Ke3 Kf6
52. Bd1 Nc4+
53. Ke4 Kg7
54. Be2 Nb2
|Jul-28-04|| ||chess4games: In the endgame here, knights are better than bishops. Because ever piece can run away from a bishop by moving to a opposite color. |
|Aug-15-04|| ||Everett: chess4games, this endgame is better for Spassky, so much so that Fischer resigned. Further, with pawns spread out across the board, bishops tend to be far superior to knights. |
|Jan-13-05|| ||aw1988: Buddy gave up. He should have stayed on the boat. |
|Apr-08-06|| ||Brown: Imagine Fischer getting into endgames like this against Karpov. I think by 1975, Fischer would have been a little more tenacious, but who knows.|
Fischer didn't play the KID against someone who likes the Samisch (like Spassky) which is why he chooses the Grunfeld. That didn't work for Garry Kasparov vs. Karpov.
Matching Karpov's opening vs. Fischer's openings, we would have Fischer's d4 met by Karpov's Nimzo, Fischer's e4 met by Karpov's Petrov, Caro-Kann or Ruy Lopez Zaitsev, Karpov's e4 met by Fischer's Najdorf, and Karpov's d4 met by Fischer Grunfeld.
Could Fischer and his straight forward style be as successful against the Zaitsev as Kasparov was? Would he prove a better Grunfeld player than Kasparov? Which defense of the three would Karpov choose against e4?
|Apr-08-06|| ||keypusher: 1. Fischer's d4? Wha...? I think if Fischer had played 1 c4, as he did against Spassky, it probably would have wound up in an English or QI (1 c4 e6 2 Nf3 Nf6 and now 3 d4, b3 or g3).|
2. Fischer avoided the Grunfeld against Spassky in 1972, playing the Benoni, Nimzoindian and Semi-Tarrasch, and the Queen's gambit in 1992. He probably would have dropped the Benoni against Karpov.
3. Fischer would vary from his Sicilian a lot, as he did against Spassky, because he would have feared Karpov's preparation. But his reserve defenses (Alekhine, maybe Pirc) were of the type that Karpov was particularly deadly against.
4. Could Fischer play against the Zaitzev? Yes. Karpov would have played everything in his arsenal against 1 e4.
5. IMO Bobby was never, ever going to play Karpov, in part because he knew his opening repertoire was inadequate for the task.
|Apr-08-06|| ||twinlark: <keypusher>
On point 5. IMO Fischer was not going to play anyone for reasons unrelated to Karpov, let alone his (Fischer's) opening repertoire. Remember he didn't play anyone for 20 years, and hasn't played anyone for 14 years since then. I think his failure to play was pathological rather then rational.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 8 ·