< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-07-05|| ||keypusher: Wonderfully annotated in OMGP IV. An amazing fight from beginning to end.|
|Jul-19-05|| ||Joshka: What I find amazing is that after 24...Ng6, Fischer only moves with his king, rook, and queen. <keypusher> Does Garry list blunders by Taimanov?|
|Jul-19-05|| ||offramp: It might have been worth playing on a bit; but Taimanov probably thought - 'Sod it, I'll give up now rather than prolong the torture, after all it's a long match and I'll probably pull one back.'|
|Jul-22-05|| ||keypusher: <joshka>, <What I find amazing is that after 24...Ng6, Fischer only moves with his king, rook, and queen> |
wow, I never noticed that!! Thanks for pointing it out.
<Does Garry list blunders by Taimanov?> I don't want to do injustice to Kasparov's annotations. Nor do I have the book with me.
I recall he questioned the strategy of sacrificing a pawn against Fischer. You'll doubtless be fascinated to learn that I don't agree with him. First, that's how Spassky beat Fischer at Siegen. Generally speaking Fischer, like Korchnoi, would grab anything, and sometimes it got him in trouble. Also, I learned from Bronstein's Zurich 1953 tournament book that Taimanov was a wonderful attacking player -- check out his games with white against Geller, Kotov, Petrosian and Averbakh sometime. That approach may not have brought him any wins against Fischer, but it certainly made for some interesting games.
Moving on, GK agreed with Taimanov's decision not to take the exchange with 25 Nc7. But he disliked 27 h3, reckoning white could not simply surrender a tempo in such a sharp position. GK strongly disapproved of the whole Ba6 + Rc7 idea, since in his view white was practically lost after Fischer's 29...Qa4! Instead he showed some interesting variations stemming from a white Bb5! at various points. Had Fischer played 31...Kh7 instead of 31...Kf7 it would have been all but over in GK's view.
GK argues that after 36 Ng3! instead of 36 Nd4 white would still have had everything to play for, since black's exposed king would have made it very hard for him to take advantage of his exchange advantage. In the game after 37...Qb4! Fischer forced the queens off.
<offramp> Kasparov doesn't get into it much, but the resignation doesn't appear to have been premature. Taimanov actually sealed 41 Bg4 and resigned before the resumption. After 41...Nxg4 42 hg Ne5 and ...Nf3 the threat of ...d4 looks killing. If 43 Nb5 Nxg4+ 44 Kg2 Nxe3+ 45 fe Rxe3 white can certainly resign. But I haven't looked at it with a computer.
|Jul-25-05|| ||keypusher: OK, now I have. Fritz thinks 41...Ne5 is stronger than 41...Nxg4 but gives black a better-than-two-pawns advantage after either move.|
|Jul-25-05|| ||Koster: Technically, if white sealed the move before resigning, shouldn't that move be considered part of the game?|
|Jul-25-05|| ||Sneaky: Often, the exact point at which a game ends is a matter of debate. I know I've been in tournament games, for example, where it was my move, I wrote down "Rxh7+" on my scoresheet, then as my hand reached toward the rook, the opponent stopped me and shook my hand. My opponent went home with a scoresheet that did not include the crushing final blow, but mine does. If this sort of thing can happen at my level of play, I don't see why it can't happen at a GM level. Things get a little fuzzy around the very end of a game, especially when one player is quite willing to give up.|
A more famous example is the famous immortal game Adolf Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851, where it is believed by most historians that Kieseritsky resigned as early as 20.Ke2, however some spectators had made wagers on the outcome of the game, and those who backed Kieseritsky demanded that he play on! And so a few hurried moves were made to demonstrate the imminent mate to the peanut-gallery, and these moves (being so delightful) are often tacked onto the end of the game.
|Jul-25-05|| ||who: A problem that occurs frequently in my King's Indian games as black (and especially if I play ...e5 somewhere) is that my bishop on g7 never does anything. That occurs here to Fiscer, though, obviously, it worked out o.k. for him.|
|Jul-26-05|| ||keypusher: <A more famous example is the famous immortal game Adolf Anderssen vs Kieseritzky, 1851, where it is believed by most historians that Kieseritsky resigned as early as 20.Ke2, however some spectators had made wagers on the outcome of the game, and those who backed Kieseritsky demanded that he play on! And so a few hurried moves were made to demonstrate the imminent mate to the peanut-gallery, and these moves (being so delightful) are often tacked onto the end of the game.>|
Sneaky, thanks, I have always wondered about the conclusion to that game. Do you remember where you read the story about the bettors demanding that the game be played out?
|Jul-26-05|| ||Sneaky: keypusher, I know I read it online but I just did a google search and came up empty handed. It might have been in Winter's chess column but I'm not sure.|
"La Palamede" is the French chess magazine which first published the game--probably most of the fact & fiction surrounding that titanic struggle come from that source.
|Jul-26-05|| ||sibilare: <Koster: > I think the sealed move is only played once both players are back sitting at the table. Then the envelope is opened up to be played.|
If the player whom sealed the move resigns prior to that. Then techincally the move has not been played.
That is my take on it... I never had to play a game where a move was sealed.
|Dec-23-06|| ||Mateo: <GK agreed with Taimanov's decision not to take the exchange with 25 Nc7.> I wonder why. Maybe the King thinks that after 27...Qf7 28.Nxa8 Nxf4, Fischer has enough compensation because :|
1) he has one pawn for the exchange (the extra pawn is the d pawn which can already advance at least to d4)
2) the White Knight cannot come back quickly into play on the c7 square (Black controls it twice with his two heavy pieces).
3) Black could get some attacking prospects on the Kingside.
But the question remains: is this just enough compensation or more than enough? It is not clear to me that the move actually played (25.Nd4) was better.
|Aug-03-07|| ||talisman: <keypusher> what does<OMGP> say about 12. Ng5? this seems to be the move.it seems we can put ! or ? or any combination of the two behind white's 12th move which achieves the light square bishop but at the cost of a pawn.|
|Sep-09-07|| ||ketchuplover: 38...Qe1 looks good to me :)|
|Jan-05-08|| ||Eyal: <ketchuplover: 38...Qe1 looks good to me :)> It actually leads only to a draw, since White gets a perpetual check after 39.Qxa7+. 38...Qb6, as played by Fischer, is the only move leading to a win for Black. |
Btw, an important reason why 31...Kh7 would have been significantly better for Black than Kf7, as mentioned above by <keypusher>, is that on f7 the king occupies a square which would have been better left for the rook: after 31...Kh7 32.Be2 <Rf7>, 33.Nxf5 would lose to 33...Ng8!
|Jun-23-08|| ||addiction to chess: I think the reason Taimanov resigned is because after the bishop moves, the knight on g6 can go to e5 then c6 with a dangerous outpost and can safely march the d pawn and also since Fischer is up the exchange.|
|Jun-23-08|| ||Travis Bickle: Taimanov made a statement about Fischers playing, which Bobby read and rather appreciated many years later on a radio broadcast which Bobby
read out loud 'Taimanov': "at GM level of chess you know what your opponent is trying to achieve on the board, wether you can stop it is another matter. With Fischer we were playing chess Bobby was playing something else. When we finally realized his intentions it was too late you were dead." As Garry Kasparov said in 'My great Predecessors' "Bobby Fischer theoretically was at least 15 years ahead of his contemporaries."|
|Aug-03-09|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <I think the reason Taimanov resigned is because after the bishop moves, the knight on g6 can go to e5 then c6 with a dangerous outpost> Or simply deliver mate with knight and rook. If White moves either g or h pawn the other knight will join in the mating net.|
|Feb-09-10|| ||BearJr: Taimanov missed the blow 27.Ba6!,Rb6 28.Bb5!,Qf7 29.Rc7!,Ne7 etc... (says Rybka3).|
|Mar-22-10|| ||birthtimes: This looks like it was the first time that Taimanov ever played 9. Bd2. This makes one wonder why he did not play 9. Nd2 since he had played it five times previously, winning three times and drawing twice. Fischer seems to have played against 9. Nd2 only one time previous to this game, a blitz game against Korchnoi in 1970.|
|Mar-22-10|| ||birthtimes: And both players would have been very familiar with the following game...|
Geller vs Minic, 1968
|Jun-27-10|| ||Marmot PFL: 33 Nxf5 For the exchange White has a pawn more, and his pieces, first of all his knight, are in good positions. Unfortunately Taimanov played badly for the rest of the game. (Tal)|
<GK argues that after 36 Ng3! instead of 36 Nd4 white would still have had everything to play for>
Here Tal recommended 36 Qg5 or even 36 g4. His notes are older though and do not benefit from computer lines.
|Mar-16-12|| ||Garech: This is the best game of thier match, in mu opinion - great play from both sides but as in the other games Fischer has greater precision - especially with reduced material - and dominates.|
<Marmot> - even with perfect play after 33.Nxf5 white is struggling for equality at best (according to Fritz 12) as Fischer, as always, played like a machine. Similarly to Kasparov, Fritz suggests 36.Ng3 - where's your source for this? I'd be interested to know.
Tal's aggressive 36.Qg5 seems to be refuted by 36...Rb2!
click for larger view
where play might continue 37.Bg7 Qc7+ 38.Kg1 Rb1+ 39.Bf1 Qb6!
click for larger view
with a big edge for black.
36.g4 is definitely preferable, with roughly the same eval as 36.Ng3.
|Mar-17-12|| ||Riverbeast: You can't mess with Mother Nature....
And you can't attack Bobby Fischer
|Mar-17-12|| ||Penguincw: Not a good way for Taimanov to start the match.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·