< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Nov-04-10|| ||elohah: 25...Mednis gives a mistaken note here, thinking that after 25...Re8?, White will answer with 26 Ne4?
Of course, with Black's rooks now wrongly positioned, correct would instead be 26 Re1! (which now does threaten the e-pawn), and after 26...e5 27 f5! of course favors White.|
26...Re8? 27 Ne4 wins the exchange.
Seeing that he's dropping the e-pawn, Bobby, with 26...Qb6!, at least wants this variation: 27 Nxe6? Rd2! 28 Qf3 Re8 29 f5 Rxa2!
|Nov-04-10|| ||elohah: 28...If 28...Kg7 29 Qxe6 Qxe6 30 Rxe6 Kf7! (not given by Mednis) 31 Rfe2! Rxf4 32 g5! h6 (nothing better) 33 Re7+ Kf8 34 Rh7! (stronger than 34 Nd7+ Kg8 35 gh) hg 35 Nd7+! Kg8 36 Ree7! mating. Great, Boris!|
|Nov-04-10|| ||elohah: 29..., 30..., See Mednis, who gives great notes here.|
|Nov-04-10|| ||elohah: 38 !
39 !! GREAT conclusion, Boris! This is one of Spassky's greatest games.
Tho now his great rival is gone...
One can only conclude with the words of the great Russian novelist Turgenev:
'I am dying...Live on, ye living.'
And may the young life play
At the entrance of the grave,
And Nature the indifferent
With beauty beam forever!
|Mar-07-11|| ||technical draw: Here is the scorecard from this game. Compare Fischer's wild script with Spassky's fine penmanship:|
|Jun-17-11|| ||IRONCASTLEVINAY: Here photo of the match with fishers scoresheet http://blog.chess.com/qixel/famous-...|
|Jul-06-11|| ||Ulhumbrus: 25..Rd6 enables White's N to go to e4 on its way to f6 with tempo, after the bishops have been exchanged.|
|Jul-06-11|| ||fab4: < elohah: Notes...
11...Has this move ever been questioned? I believe the other rook should go here, since there's no reason to save it for ...Rac8; Black doesn't have enuf prospects on the c-file. Of course, since I'm also wondering why White can't just play dc! on moves 10 and 11, I'm still a bit leary of 11...b6. (12 dc! - does that win a pawn?)>
dc on 10 or 11 just dissolves whites' centre...
As for your 'wrong rook ' argument ? Fischer want's to keep things fluid in the centre and the bishop on c8 has no decent square to go to.. Rfd8 looks natural . And good.
|Jul-06-11|| ||fab4: Great quote by Turgenev BTW !|
|Aug-05-11|| ||DrMAL: 34...Rd8 (34...Qb6 possibly draws) was surely losing.|
From here, both sides played correctly until 37...Rd6 (instead of 37...Qd6 or 37...Qd6) another blunder lost much faster. Spassky found the two moves to show it (39...Kxf8 40.Qh8+ Kf7 41.Qxh7+ Kf8 42.Nxc7) Brilliant play!
|Aug-05-11|| ||DrMAL: After 34...Qb6 it's a very hard endgame to win if at all.|
Playing it out I got 35.Qxb6 axb6 36.Rd1 Rd8 37.Rc1 Nc4 38.Re1 Rd3 39.Re8+ Kg7 40.Re7+ Kf8 41.Rxh7 Rg3+ 42.Kh2 Ra3 43.h4 Rxa2+
click for larger view
From here, with some computer help to make sure, 44.Kg3 Ra3+ 45.Kf2 Ra2+ 46.Kf3 Ra3+ 47.Ke4 Nd6+ 48.Kd5 Nf5 49.h5 Rd3+ 50.Kc6 gxh5 51.Kxb5 Ne7 52.Kc4 Rd1 53.Nxh5 Rc1+ 54.Kd3
click for larger view
From here it seems to be a draw.
|Jan-03-12|| ||Volmac: After 22...b5
" I decided to complicate the game and activate the knight to e4 through sacrifice of the d pawn. After the game Grandmaster Najdorf told me that Fischer didn't have to accept the offer, but simply play 23...Rf8. I had seen myself that Black would have kept his positional advantage with the moves 23...Rf8 24 Nc5 Rae8. But I was without doubt that Fischer would capture the d4 pawn. I had know for a long time that the American Grandmaster very much liked to have extra pawns." [Spassky]
|Mar-10-12|| ||GrahamClayton: Here is a photo of the game. Look at the huge crowd straining to get a glimpse!|
|Nov-12-12|| ||ChessYouGood: Fischer outclassed|
|Nov-12-12|| ||Paraconti: Spassky had simply too much confidence and calmness as the new world champ to get rattled by Fischer's overpress for the advantage.|
|Mar-27-13|| ||Jadoubious: "Here is the scorecard from this game. Compare Fischer's wild script with Spassky's fine penmanship:"|
Also note that Fischer's record is in DESCRIPTIVE.
|Jun-28-13|| ||RookFile: It was deep play, Fischer appeared to have a tactic but Spassky saw further into the position on this occasion.|
|Jun-28-13|| ||csmath: <Spassky had simply too much confidence and calmness as the new world champ to get rattled by Fischer's overpress for the advantage.>|
I think this is one of the best played games in that time, truly a contest of champions. Up to Fischer's sequence of errors starting with 30th move, probably due to lack of time it is not that Fischer is pressing for advantage but that they are discussing the position where white has a powerful game but black has good active defence.
It is the game of giants not some coffee house play.
Fischer play is a classic positional defence seeking dynamic initiative learned from Smyslov (game with Gligoric in 1959) while it is exactly Spassky that is very creative and aggressive here (moves 16. g4 and 23. Ne4 and 27. Ne4).
It is one of the most analized game of that time, certainly a model play for many to come.
|Jun-28-13|| ||csmath: I can add correction to mistake in Kasparov's analysis.|
He wrote that black would not be saved by 34. ...Qb6 and quoted
35. Qxb6 axb6
36. Rd1 Rd8
37. Kg2 Rd4
38. Re1 Kg7
39. Re7+ Kf8
40. Rb7 Rxf4
41. Nxh7+ Kf8
42. Nf6+ Kf8
43. Nd7+ Ke7
but 43. ...Ke7? very natural move is a grave mistake
Black should simply play
43. ... Ke8
and it is now not entirely visible how would white win this.
44. Nf6 Kf8
45. Rxb6 Ra4! to eliminate a-pawn
which leaves white in a very difficult ending to win. It would surely be a good test ending for both.
|Jul-27-13|| ||Tigranny: This is definitely an underrated game from Spassky; even though he lost to Fischer in '72, he was still his toughest opponent, especially before the match.|
|Jul-27-13|| ||DoctorD: It might be underrated today, but before the match, it was widely cited as one reason Fischer would not beat Spassky.|
|Jul-27-13|| ||RookFile: Not hard to imagine that Spassky put a lot of prep work into the Gruenfeld for the '72 match. Fischer had genius by not going anywhere near that and other lines that might have been predicted for him (with the exception of the Najdorf Sicilian - Fischer figured he knew that better than anyone.)|
|Jul-28-13|| ||JoergWalter: <Tigranny: This is definitely an underrated game from Spassky; even though he lost to Fischer in '72, he was still his toughest opponent, especially before the match.>|
To make it clear, I admire both players. But I think it is sad that Spassky is often just remembered or labelled as the guy who lost the title to Fischer. There is so much to be learned from his games and I just recalled that Fischer's opening in the spectacular first game of the 1992 rematch was an opening Spassky introduced in a game with Unzicker.
|Jan-02-14|| ||Tigranny: <JoergWalter> Exactly. Spassky, being one of my favorite players, should be labelled more for his style of play that was universal over the board and his ability to crush Fischer if he could, not just his losses in the matches. :)|
|Apr-14-14|| ||Everett: <RookFile: Not hard to imagine that Spassky put a lot of prep work into the Gruenfeld for the '72 match. Fischer had genius by not going anywhere near that and other lines that might have been predicted for him (with the exception of the Najdorf Sicilian - Fischer figured he knew that better than anyone.)>|
That's not genius, that's common sense. Like in the last WC, Anand knew he should avoid the Berlin Ruy vs Carlsen... Um... Wait a minute...
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·