|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-07-11 | | diceman: <GrahamClayton: "Staged" photo, probably taken in the post-mortem analysis:> Thanks for that.
It says "a 10 game series".
I've never seen the other 4 games :) |
|
| Apr-07-11 | | fab4: < Everett: Incidentally, Larsen had a draw in his position which renders Fischer's "shutout" a bit less legit. > lol.. You make me laugh. You, and there's a few others circulating on this site, are so uber negative as regards Fischer it's just funny... And taking YOUR argument further.. well, so many great encounters in chess history would have to be seen in a different light ! lol .. |
|
| Apr-07-11 | | TheFocus: Sure he had a draw, but a draw would still have lost the match, so Larsen "went for broke", a courageous, though hopeless, decision. |
|
| Apr-07-11 | | fab4: <TheFocus: Sure he had a draw, but a draw would still have lost the match, so Larsen "went for broke", a courageous, though hopeless, decision. > Thanks for that enlightenment.. ZZZ |
|
| Apr-07-11 | | TheFocus: Hey <fab4> just trying to contribute. |
|
| Apr-07-11 | | Everett: <Fab4> I'm simply stating the obvious here. Take it any way you want it. |
|
| Apr-07-11 | | jerseybob: Keypusher: In your analysis, the contention that 25..Qe7 26.Qxe7,Rxe7 27.Nb3 leaves white "not too bad off", just doesn't wash for me. Black's a pawn up, with a 4-2 kingside majority and an unmoveable knight on e5. After 27..R7d7, just what does white have going anyway? After the swap of at least one pair of rooks and possibly both, black should eventually roll it up in the center and kingside. Larsen would not have swapped queens. |
|
Apr-09-11
 | | keypusher: <jerseybob>
I think you are right. I relied too much on a computer evaluation. Also, I didn't let the engine run long enough. Even if the continuation I posted were best, Larsen never would have played it. He was going to win or lose this game, but he wasn't going to take a draw. |
|
| Feb-01-12 | | weepingwarrior: jerseybob, I agree with you about Frank Brady's book "Profile of a Prodigy" and it's analysis being faulty and sloppy. After move 31.Q-B6 it says Incredible! 31.Q-N5 wins. Black plays K-B2 32.QR-KB1...Rxd4 and white is left helpless to a huge Black advantage! |
|
| Jul-16-13 | | newzild: <GrahamClayton> The photo was almost certainly taken during the post-mortem analysis, as the postion does not occur during the game (eg, Black's bishop never goes to h8, White never gets his pawn to f6). |
|
| Jul-16-13 | | newzild: It looks to me as though they are analysing the position after 16. a3 Bb7 (instead of 16...Na5) 17. f5 Ne5 18. f6 Bh8 19. h4: http://files.chesscomfiles.com/imag... |
|
| Nov-20-13 | | jerseybob: newzild:I remember clipping this photo from the Stars & Stripes(my main paper during my East Africa army days). It had the caption:"Grand Master Bobby Fischer looks as if he's in trouble during the sixth and deciding game of a 10-game World Chess Championship semifinal challenge series in Denver. He's not. He neatly beat Denmark's Bent Larsen 6 straight, forcing Larsen to resign as champ." I taped the photo into my copy of 60 Games and wrote underneath: "Champ of What?" |
|
| Feb-07-14 | | thegoodanarchist: < GrahamClayton: "Staged" photo, probably taken in the post-mortem analysis: http://files.chesscomfiles.com/imag>...
Don't care if it is staged. It is a photo from the era and I am grateful to see it! |
|
| Feb-07-14 | | thegoodanarchist: <<jerseybob:> ... I taped the photo into my copy of 60 Games and wrote underneath: "Champ of What?"> Good question! Denmark, maybe? But then, Larsen would still be their champ after resigning because this was not a contest for the Danish championship. |
|
| Aug-09-17 | | Toribio3: Larsen was already in desperation mood! He wanted to surprise Fischer by playing Birds opening which was rarely played in strong tournament. |
|
| Aug-10-17 | | ughaibu: Larsen had played Bird's against Fischer before, we had won games with it against Petrosian, Spassky and Gligoric. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... |
|
| Aug-10-17 | | ughaibu: Hmmm. . . . the "w" is nowhere near the "h" on this keyboard. |
|
| Dec-30-20 | | areknames: I don't know if Larsen ever played, or even knew about cricket (most Europeans don't, not really) but he must have been devastated by the outcome of this match. So, "Knocked for six". |
|
| Nov-14-22 | | SeanAzarin: Bent And Broken |
|
Nov-14-22
 | | HeMateMe: Larsen played chess his whole life, played past his prime. So did greats like smyslov and Korchnoi. Fischer was emotionally disturbed. He quit chess at age 29. Who was bent and broken? |
|
| Apr-17-23 | | Petrosianic: <RookFile: Larsen knew that he could draw, but rightly rejected it as pointless.> Direct quotes from contemporary annotators should probably be put in quotation marks. But it's a hard statement to justify, no matter who said it, considering that breaking up the shutout seems far more important than pursuing a meaningless win. It's definitely nice that Larsen shot himself in the foot a couple of times, but let's not pretend it was a smart sporting decision. |
|
Apr-17-23
 | | perfidious: Believe a contemporaneous comment--might have been Levy in <How Fischer Plays Chess>--went something on the lines of: <....Larsen is a superb practical player who realised that agreeing to a draw was merely pushing Fischer one step closer to the finish line. In games five and six, he could have forced draws had he so desired, but he threw caution to the wind....> |
|
Apr-17-23
 | | plang: <considering that breaking up the shutout seems far more important than pursuing a meaningless win> ?!? Why? A draw would have conceded the match; playing for a win was the only way to attempt to prolong the match and seems completely consistent with Larsen's style. |
|
Apr-17-23
| | perfidious: Larsen, warts and all, was ever an optimist; it was never his way to give an inch to any opponent. |
|
Apr-17-23
 | | fredthebear: Exactly. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
