< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Dec-28-11|| ||IAMNOPATZER: Hmm..|
|Dec-28-11|| ||Penguincw: White is lucky it's just queen and rook fork. Imagine king and queen fork.|
|Dec-28-11|| ||kevin86: Black gains a tempo with the check and sets up a fork of rook and queen.|
|Dec-28-11|| ||rogl: <meloncio: "The kids are all right" is a recent movie, but I prefer "The Kids Are Alright", a 60s classical rock song by The Who> considering your avatar I would have thought you'd prefer "Here's looking at you KID".|
|Dec-28-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Very witty post, <rogl>. LOL.|
|Dec-28-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: One of the world's top GM's prepares ahead of time to face a predictable Fischer KID, and gets crushed in just over 30 moves.|
|Dec-28-11|| ||al wazir: <newzild: After 30. g3, it looks like Black can simplify to a won ending with 30...fxe2 31. gxh4 Bxe4 32. Qxe4 Rxf2>.|
You're right, except that there isn't going to be any endgame. It's over. Thanks.
|Dec-28-11|| ||tesasembiring: This game really astonished me. Larsen got "Chess Oscar" but Fisher will be world champhion. Denver, the site of this game to be the witnessed of two brialliant player. Fisher beaten Larsen 6-0, incredible !!|
|Dec-29-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: It's "Fischer", not "Fisher". Anyway, Fischer's 6-0 scores in 1971 were brilliant, but also lucky. Taimanov was past it and made a number of signifant blunders and Larsen was uncompromising and wouldn't make a draw if it was there. Fischer's later dismantling of Petrosian was much more convincing.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||RookFile: That must be what Keres wrote that a miracle had occurred with Fischer's 6-0 over Larsen.|
|Dec-29-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <AnalyzeThis: One of the world's top GM's prepares ahead of time to face a predictable Fischer KID, and gets crushed in just over 30 moves.>|
Well, this was hardly a case of White getting steadily outplayed over the course of 30+ moves, (the sort of game typically described as a “crush”), but rather an instance of sudden degringolade when Larsen omitted the essential <27. Kh1>. Kasparov, in <On My Great Predecessors, Part IV>, by Garry Kasparov, tr. by Ken Neat, Everyman Chess ©2003, at p. 404, says that Black’s attack came “literally out of nothing”.
|Dec-30-11|| ||M.D. Wilson: Had it been Korchnoi or Stein or anyone on Larsen's level in 1971, a score of 6-0 would be extremely unlikely. Fischer would have won in any event, but I doubt there would have been a shut-out.|
|Dec-30-11|| ||SChesshevsky: I'm not clear what White was trying to do with the sequence 14. Qa4 then the Qa3 and Bd3.|
It seems that after 13...Nf6 White looks to have some potential with Qside activity but by 16...Qc7 Black has the rooks connected, a nice bishop on h6 and an open Kside. White only seems to be stuck with his pieces bumping into each other on the Qside
|Jan-06-12|| ||RookFile: Larsen did fine until he left his opening book. Fischer understood this position much better.|
|Jan-06-12|| ||King Death: < RookFile: Larsen did fine until he left his opening book...>|
If you're implying that Larsen relied only on that, it's like this: his mistake was deep in the middlegame and he relied less on opening theory than the other top GMs of his day.
If you want to make pointless statements and go after strawmen, try again.
|Feb-10-12|| ||drukenknight: the only fault I recall from studying Larsen is that he seems to lack the courage of his convictions, he plays all the right moves and gets to the crucial pt of the game; when it gets scary, and he backs down. you have to keep it up even if it means dropping material or whatever..Oftentimes against Fischer..Going from memory, I will try to post a few games. What say KD?|
|Feb-10-12|| ||RookFile: <King Death: If you're implying that Larsen relied only on that,>|
You can let me worry about what I'm implying. I simply said that Fischer understood this particular position better.
|Feb-10-12|| ||King Death: Now <RookFile> knows when Larsen's opening book ended. Was it nice to be part of his team? Or are you claiming that you didn't make this post:|
<RookFile: Larsen did fine until he left his opening book. Fischer understood this position much better.>?
How would you "know" what Fischer understood? Your general comments here show nothing but a lack of understanding as you put down one great player here time after time and make pointless and stupid comments to his games when there's really nothing to say. Your ignorance is worse than what the Fischer and Kasparov fanboys show us here every day. Look up "vacuous" in the dictionary, your picture should be right there.
One more thing, Larsen may have played this position poorly but it doesn't mean he didn't understand it. Using your search feature I'm sure you can find poor games from every great player in here when it suits you.
|Feb-10-12|| ||King Death: <drukenknight> I'm not sure about that, but one thing about Larsen's play in this match was that in more than one game, he turned down chances to draw because he knew that that result would only get Fischer a step closer to winning the match.|
Here's game 5 where Larsen tried to win the exchange in the ending instead of heading for opposite bishops where he would've held: Fischer vs Larsen, 1971.
Then the last game where a draw or a win were the end either way and Larsen turned down a draw, Larsen vs Fischer, 1971.
|Feb-11-12|| ||Joshka: <grasser> Thanks for the set info! I find learning about the pieces and board very interesting in these matches and hardly anything is ever written about them! Wonder what type of set was used in the Taimanov match? Petrosian? This set used in Denver almost looks like a home, amateur set. Not one for a match of this importance. Wonder why Bobby didn't want a real Staunton Professinal set? Oh well thanks again for the info!!|
|Feb-11-12|| ||RookFile: <King Death: How would you "know" what Fischer understood? >|
Well, I played over the game. Fischer won, and Larsen lost. The king issue here was the Larsen failed to take adequate measures to defend his kingside.
The rest of your comments relate to the previous comment I made. We can keep our posts related to the game, and you can save your ESP for use with others.
|Feb-11-12|| ||King Death: <CrowFilth> Your simplistic "analysis" of the game is really impressive, do you always analyze games that way? How about your sock puppet <AnalyzeThis>? Does he do it that way too?|
So you don't like being confronted on your stupidity. TFB! You don't control this forum, believe it or not.
|Feb-11-12|| ||RookFile: Larsen's chief mistake in this match was not to be true to himself. He tended to worry more about playing anti-Fischer chess (for example, the Winawer), than playing what he knew. |
Like life, I guess. There's a user here who stalks me and finds any excuse to turn chess related topics into personal attacks. All you can do is ignore him, and wish him the best during his therapy sessions.
|Feb-12-12|| ||King Death: <CrowFilth> It's you that needs therapy, you attack players that can't defend themselves.|
|Feb-12-12|| ||drukenknight: yeah, I know he was trying to complicate and that compromised his games. Sure. But like Rookfile said, he was not true to himself, he often seemed to not follow the strongest line no matter how complicated it might be. Fischer of course, never backed down from complications, he was always true in that regard, and of course you need to be that way to beat the best. There were a couple Larsen games in the Larry Evans Modern Chess Brilliancies; and there was at least one in Denver we went over where the strongest move is quite apparent but Larsen backs down. That will just kill you against someone with Fischer's resolve..|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·