|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-28-13
 | | diceman: <Eggman: <Geller had thought that 67...g3 was impossible: he intended to answer it with 68.fxg3+ followed by 69.Kxf1! One of more than a few fantastic blunders committed by Fischer opponents in the early 1970s.>> Bobby Fischer:
< "People have been playing against me below their strength for fifteen years." > |
 |
Oct-28-13
 | | perfidious: <keypusher>: And Tal was merely thought to have hypnotised opponents on his way to the title.... |
|
Oct-28-13
 | | keypusher: <perfidious: <keypusher>: And Tal was merely thought to have hypnotised opponents on his way to the title....> The funny thing is, we know from the tablebases that it didn't matter -- the game was still drawn after ...g3. The losing move came a bit later. Of course, probably the biggest reason that Fischer was the beneficiary of all these blunders was simply that he played games out. Most GMs would have accepted the draw here or in the second game in the Taimanov match long before. |
|
Oct-28-13
| | perfidious: <keypusher>: Indeed; even in those days it was well known that the position you cite remained no more than a draw until Geller blundered. |
|
Oct-28-13
 | | AylerKupp: <<Wyatt Gwyon> Naw, he was just fortunate that Fischer didn't know the en passant rule.> Fischer certainly knew the en passant rule. But he thought that it only applied to Communist cheaters, not to him. |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | Conrad93: I know the en passant rule. I don't remember anyone mentioning that it had to be on the fifth or fourth rank. |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | Conrad93: Fischer didn't win because he played it out, he won because his opponent blundered an easy draw. |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | enpassant jadoube: Hello Conrad, long time no see. Nobody knows me like you! |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | PaulLovric: <Conrad93: Fischer didn't win because he played it out, he won because his opponent blundered an easy draw.> i think you are batting in the wrong league here, there are masters negating everything you say about this game, and the rules of chess, not to mention, RJF, arguably the greatest of all GMs, and you keep posting infernal blithering about the most ridiculous things. I am sure you are just learning, and obviously, you are new to chess but for the love of god go and do some research. |
|
Oct-28-13
 | | Wyatt Gwyon: <<Conrad93><I know the en passant rule. >>
You might know it now, but you most certainly did not know it on October 25. <<Conrad93><Fischer didn't win because he played it out, he won because his opponent blundered an easy draw.>> If you are unfamiliar with the basic rules of chess, please do us all a favor and spare us your assessment of rook endgames (and Paul Morphy). |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | Agent Bouncy: Please do not be too hard on Conrad93. He is very lonely and doesn't have any friends. |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | Conrad93: <Please do not be too hard on Conrad93. He is very lonely and doesn't have any friends.> This coming from a chess player is highly amusing. |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | Conrad93: 1. All Geller had to do was play 71. Kg6. It is a very obvious move. 2. Paul Morphy was great for his time, but in modern times he would be easily crushed. All-out attacks no longer work in professional circles, and are restricted to patzers and beginners. Like I said before, his games aren't that interesting. They are too simple minded for my tastes. I prefer Steinitz, and so far my comments have not been refuted. But keep going with your insults if it makes you feel nice and safe. |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | PaulLovric: refuted....on so many levels |
|
Oct-28-13
| | diceman: <Conrad93: Fischer didn't win because he played it out, he won because his opponent blundered an easy draw.> Geller didn’t blunder.
The Russians ordered Geller to throw the game.
They hoped it would make Fischer overconfident during the candidates cycle. |
|
| Oct-28-13 | | PaulLovric: 1ST REFUTATION: <conrad93> your choice or preference for Steinitz is totally your own opinion, but to say that Paul Morphy's, "games aren't that interesting. They are too simple minded for my tastes." is completely IGNORANT. Fischer said Morphy, "was perhaps the greatest genius of all." But I can forgive you, my own rating is about 1000 points lower than Fischer's and i have been playing for over 15 years, and I have a big advantage over you.....I know the rules of the game. What is your chess rating? Do you actually play the game or are you a serial pest? |
|
Oct-28-13
| | diceman: <Conrad93: Fischer didn't win because he played it out, he won because his opponent blundered an easy draw.> Now thats funny! |
|
Oct-28-13
| | diceman: <Conrad93:
I prefer Steinitz>
In his time,
Steinitz was known as the "en passantinator." |
|
| Oct-29-13 | | Conrad93: Fischer had Morphy fever. It messed with his rationality. |
|
Nov-08-13
 | | Pawn and Two: Here is a very confusing explanation of the "en passant" rule, published more than a century ago in "The British Chess Code", and retained as late as 1918 in, "The International Chess Code" - London & New York 1918. http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... |
|
| Jan-03-14 | | PJs Studio: Of earn GM's don't seem to fight this hard in endings. Great win against a Super player! |
|
| Jan-08-14 | | PJs Studio: Of earn GM's should read "modern GM's" in my comment above. |
|
| Jan-08-14 | | RookFile: For the most part, Geller defended very well in this game after getting into trouble, before going astray. |
|
Mar-06-14
 | | whiteshark: 71.Rd8 Ra5+ 72.Ke4 g2 (72...Kh3 73.Rh8+ Kg2 74.f5= (Vasyukov)) 73.Rg8 Kh3 74.Kf3 Ra3+ 75.Kf2 Ra2+ 76.Kf3 Kh2 77.f5= 71.Kg6 Ra6+ 72.Kf5 Ra8 73.Rd7 Rf8+ 74.Ke4 Rg8 75.Kf3= (Lilienthal) |
|
Jan-07-17
 | | The Boomerang: "Fischer had Morphy fever. It messed with his rationality." Lololol...exactly....the same way people have Fischer fever.... |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing