< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·
|Aug-30-14|| ||morfishine: <coldsweat> With all due respect to Botvinnik, Game 13 is hardly qualified to be called the "highest creative achievement of Fischer"|
After all, Spassky blundered away a simple draw at the end
|Sep-20-14|| ||ColeTrane: 29...Bxh2???????????¿|
|Sep-20-14|| ||Sally Simpson: Sally Simpson: Fischer played a bad move no club player would play. |
OK I'll give you that. Though it takes another 26, some of them very good moves by Spassky, to prove it. And yet I've seen so called club players make the same blunder under even more severe conditions, like having no Rook's pawn so they cannot even make an attempt to free the trapped Bishop.
On the other hand, Fischer played hundreds (nay thousands) of good moves that no club would ever play.
Let it go.
|Sep-21-14|| ||RookFile: Bxh2 is an error, but probably half the people criticizing Fischer think he didn't see g3. Of course he did. What he missed is a move a few moves down the road.|
|Sep-21-14|| ||offramp: <Sep-20-14 ColeTrane: 29...Bxh2???????????¿|
<Sep-20-14 Sally Simpson: Sally Simpson: Fischer played a bad move no club player would play...>>
Wrong! Great players can get away with it:
Anand vs Carlsen, 2013
Carlsen played 18...Bx♙a2.
|Oct-19-14|| ||AylerKupp: <offramp> Yes, but Carlsen's bishop had an easily seen escape. Fischer's bishop didn't, except perhaps in Fischer's mind. You're not "getting away with anything" if there is nothing to get away from. Now, if Carlsen's bishop was truly trapped and it only got away through a blunder in Anand's part, that would be one thing, but that wasn't the case.|
|Oct-30-14|| ||MissScarlett: <As the Czech Railways Chess Train rolled around central Europe this month, a veteran Grandmaster revealed the answer to one of chess' most baffling unsolved mysteries.>|
|Oct-30-14|| ||AylerKupp: <MissScarlett> To hear Fischer tell it, he never made a chess blunder in his life. All the errors he made on the chessboard were on purpose.|
|Jan-21-15|| ||G Kasparov: It wasn't 30.g3 that Fischer missed, it was 32.Kf3 that he missed. Fischer thought he would play 32.Kf1.|
SEE THIS GAME!!!
Kasparov vs Topalov, 1999
|Jan-21-15|| ||Petrosianic: It wasn't 32. Kf3 that he missed either.
The consensus at the time seemed to be that Fischer had counted on 30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 h4 32. Kf3 h3 34. Kg4 Bf1 35. Kxh3 Bxh2, but that he overlooked that White now has 36. Bd2!, keeping the Bishop trapped.
|Jan-21-15|| ||G Kasparov: MAYBE YOUR RIGHT!!
SEE THIS GAME TOO!!
P Frazer vs Taubenhaus, 1888
|Jan-24-15|| ||Helmy: Does 31. Ke2 g5! Fischer forcing a draw?|
|Jan-24-15|| ||DWINS: <Helmy: Does 31. Ke2 g5! Fischer forcing a draw?>|
What is the point of 31...g5 and why do you give it an exclamation point? It does nothing to prevent Spassky from bringing his King to g2 and capturing Fischer's bishop.
|Jan-24-15|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: As noted before, possibly the best reference work on this endgame is chapter 8 of "Analysing the Endgame" by Jon Speelman (revised edition, Batsford 1988). Curiously, Jan Timman makes no mention of Speelman's work in the new edition of his book on the match. ("Fischer World Champion!", Euwe and Timman, New in Chess, 2002.)|
31...g5 was not sufficient to draw.
|Mar-26-15|| ||maseras: Everybody thinks 29...Bxh2 is a bad move,but it's not.The real loser was 30...h5?
After 30.g3, Fischer should play 30...Ke7!! Black shouldnt worry about his bishop.He cannot save it,Black should attack to the pawns. The threat is Kd6-c5xb5xa4.
31.Ke2 Kd6! 32.a4 Kc5 33.Bd2 Kc4! 34.Kf3 Kb3 35.a5 Kc4 36.b6 ab 37.ab Bg1! 38.Kg2 Bxf2 39.Kxf2 Kb5! and after Kxb6,Black has four pawns and White has two pawns in K-Side.This is draw.|
|Mar-27-15|| ||Petrosianic: I'm not so sure you're right there. Just looking at it quickly, say something like|
30. g3 Ke7 31. a4 Kd6 32. Ba3+ makes it hard for that king to penetrate. He can't play 32...Kd5, else 33. e4+ Ke5 34. f4 mate. And if the King retreats after Ba3+, he hasn't gained anything.
|Mar-27-15|| ||diceman: <maseras: Everybody thinks 29...Bxh2 is a bad move,but it's not.The real loser was 30...h5? After 30.g3, Fischer should play 30...Ke7!! Black shouldnt worry about his bishop.He cannot save it,Black should attack to the pawns. The threat is Kd6-c5xb5xa4. 31.Ke2 Kd6! 32.a4 Kc5 33.Bd2 Kc4! 34.Kf3 Kb3 35.a5 Kc4 36.b6 ab 37.ab Bg1! 38.Kg2 Bxf2 39.Kxf2 Kb5! and after Kxb6,Black has four pawns and White has two pawns in K-Side.This is draw.>|
after ...31...Kd6 white can play
32.b6, after axb white goes for the trapped bishop.
If black brings his king to the queenside with can play Bd2 and Bb4
holding the queenside.
|Mar-27-15|| ||Petrosianic: Now, one bizarre line to look at is
30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 g5 32. Kf3 h4 33. Kg2 g4 34. Kxh2 h3
Black only gets one pawn for the Bishop, but White's king is pasted into the corner. I think I once looked at it and concluded that White could win by wiggling his King over to f1, putting the Bishop on g1, and using the tempos it provided to out-maneuver Black's king. White wins, but it's not fun.
For example, if Black goes aggressively after the Queenside, it might be something like:
30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 g5 32. Kf3 h4 33. Kg2 g4 34. Kxh2 h3 35. f3 f5 36. e4 Ke7 37. exf5 exf5 38. fxg4 fxg4 39. Kg1 Kd6 40. Be3 a6 41. bxa6 bxa6 42. Kf1 Kd5 43. Bg1 Kc4 44. Ke2 Kb3 45. Ke3 Kxa3 46. Kf4 a5 47. Kxg4 a4 48. Kxh3 Kb3 49. Bd4
And if he doesn't, he gradually gets pushed back.
|Mar-27-15|| ||Howard: To make sure we're all on the same page about something, 36.Kg4 would have only been good enough for a draw, correct? If I remember right, Kasparov's MGP states that it would have won, but the analysis wasn't very convincing, as I recall.|
|Mar-27-15|| ||Petrosianic: I don't remember that analysis, but I think it's a draw after 36. Kg4, and that the losing move comes later.|
|Mar-28-15|| ||Howard: According to Mueller's book, 36.Kg4 would only have drawn, and the losing move did indeed come a bit later.|
|Jun-10-15|| ||AylerKupp: <SimonWebbsTiger> As noted before, possibly the best reference work on this endgame is chapter 8 of "Analysing the Endgame" by Jon Speelman (revised edition, Batsford 1988).>|
The best known and most comprehensive perhaps, but it is wrong. Speelman did not have access to computers and strong engines when he wrote his book. As my analysis using Rybka showed starting in Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 (kibitz #455), Fischer was lost after 29...Bxh2 regardless of what he did afterwards, assuming best play by Spassky. So, until someone else produces a similar or more comprehensive analysis, I stand by my opinion.
But that is the crux of the matter, <assuming best play by Spassky>. So even though Fischer was technically lost, Spassky still had to find the best moves, and the win would have taken time. It is one thing to say that one player has a win after move 29 but it is another thing to say that the player will actually be able to win.
|Jun-10-15|| ||AylerKupp: <<maseras> Everybody thinks 29...Bxh2 is a bad move,but it's not.>|
I guess that depends on your definition of a bad move. I define a bad move (a.k.a. "blunder") as any move that turns a likely draw (or a win) into a likely loss. But, as I said above, just because a loss is "likely" it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to happen 100% of the time. The likely winner still has to find the best moves to bring home the win!
But what IMO makes 29...Bxh2 objectively a bad move is that it turns a position that will likely be drawn with ease into a position where Black has to play very accurately for many moves in order to achieve the same result. Why do that? Some have theorized that Fischer wanted to lull Spassky into a false sense of security so that he could stomp him later, sort of a Steinitz gambit where Steinitz lost the first game in both his WC matches with Tchigorin before winning both of them. If that's correct then maybe Fischer played a "double Steinitz gambit" by forfeiting the second game to go down 0-2 in the match. But I can't comment on that.
|Jun-10-15|| ||Petrosianic: <Why do that? Some have theorized that Fischer wanted to lull Spassky into a false sense of security so that he could stomp him later,>|
There are some people who can't conceive of Fischer simply losing a game. Rookfile was even once working on a master list of excuses for all known Fischer defeats. In this case, even after Fischer himself said that the move was simply an oversight, some still don't believe it.
|Jun-10-15|| ||FSR: <AylerKupp> I agree. It's sort of like an ending with rook and bishop versus rook and bishop, with no pawns, where one side hangs his bishop. The resulting piece-down ending is still drawn with perfect play, but it's stupid to go from a trivial draw to a difficult one. By the same token, if the side with R+B then hangs his rook, thereby going into a B v. R ending, the ending remains a theoretical draw, but it's silly to voluntarily go from the better half of a draw to the worse half of one. If one has access to the Nalimov tablebases, a draw is a draw is a draw, but in practice between humans without such access it may be a different story.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 24 OF 24 ·