< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 26 ·
|Sep-22-15|| ||Howard: Regarding your Korchnoi comment, he missed a mate-in-four against Karpov in Game 5 of their 1978 match--that's certainly no secret.|
And in the 17th game, he walked straight into a mate-in-two !
|Sep-22-15|| ||4tmac: ....Nate in 3 - very memorable! |
click for larger view
Karpov goes up 4-1. But from a chess standpoint, the most important fortelling move of This Game was 14...B-d7 Bobby had defense ready. G3 benoni, G5 Huebner, G7(11) Poison, G9..b5!, G13(19)AAA, Pirc, Paulson & I don't know what! Bobby came ready to play....when he played. :)
|Sep-22-15|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Diceman,
Quite a few candidates you listed there, that's the kind of thing I was looking for. Cheers.
That 1972 match (the one played somewhere in Iceland) keeps throwing them up. What would we do without it.
But I'm going to along with Sam Sloan and agree that 29..BxKRp is the most famous simply because outside of Marshall's Qg3 I cannot think of another one.
What do you think is the most famous or startling TN there has ever been?
I'll kick off with the good Captain Evans and his 4.b4. That one sparked off the Romantic Era.
There is a book in this. 10 famous moves, 10 famous TN's and Ten things you never knew about Bobby Fischer.
(for the last bit we just print 10 things everyone knows about Fischer but say we did not know you knew them when you bought the book...we'll get away with that. Trust me.)
|Sep-22-15|| ||NeverAgain: <AylerKupp: I saw a trailer showing the 2nd Piatagorsky cup and I couldn't believe the number of errors. [...] This was an idea of Mrs. Piatagorsky.> |
Heh. "Piatagorsky" and "errors". Now what do these two words have in common? ;)
<I know this for a fact because I was one of those young boys and I attended every game.>
That makes it a double "heh". Makes me a little sad too, as it reminds me we're not getting any younger ...
|Sep-23-15|| ||Howard: Hmmm....two candidates for best TN, in my view would be:|
And it's no accident that both of these have been GOTD.
|Sep-23-15|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Howard,
We can show links.
Polugaevsky vs E Torre, 1981
Miles vs Beliavsky, 1986
Speaking Miles I think you jogged my memory for another famous move.
Karpov vs Miles, 1980
|Sep-23-15|| ||RookFile: Fischer's play through move 28 was excellent in this game. 14....Bd7 improved over previous play (where black had lost) and relies upon the fact that 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Rxd7 is no good for white due to 16.....Bxa1. |
On my own, I've been thinking that the French defense structure Fischer used in this game (pawns at e6, d5, and c5) is a fundamentally sound way of playing chess. It other words, it's good against almost anything white can throw at black. Therefore, in the opening, if one is not sure what to do, this is one way of playing with black.
|Sep-24-15|| ||diceman: <Sally Simpson: Hi Diceman,
What do you think is the most famous or startling TN there has ever been?>
Marshall playing the Marshall attack against Capablanca.
Fischer's ...Nh5 in Game 3 1972.
Kramnik putting the "New Berlin"
on the map vs. Kasparov in 2000.
Fischer's "Poison Pawn" Najdorf.
Fischer bringing the exchange Ruy Lopez back in 66.
Fischer's "Weaver Adams" h3 as white in the Sicilian.
|Sep-24-15|| ||MissScarlett: Startling TNs:
Alekhine vs Euwe, 1937
Timman vs Murey, 1993
Ivanchuk vs Shirov, 1996
|Sep-26-15|| ||QueensideCastler: |
click for larger view
Analysis by Stockfish 190915 64 BMI2:
30...Ke7 31.a4 Kd6 32.Ba3+ Ke5 33.e4 f5 34.Bb2+ Kd6 35.Bxg7 f4 36.g4 f3...
(1.13) Depth: 62/75 05:54:35 612264MN, tb=2147483647
i7-5960X (16 Threads Used) & 6-Men Syzygy.
|Sep-26-15|| ||Howard: If I remember correctly, Fischer's Nh5 maneuver in Game 3 was eventually "broken down"---that is, it was discovered not to be so effective after all. Spassky, in other words, didn't counter it very effectively.|
|Sep-27-15|| ||Paraconti: I thought the movie was good, despite Tobey being a miscast. My main peeve with the historical facts was that Spassky was said to be the world champ in 1966.|
|Sep-27-15|| ||savagerules: I haven't seen the movie but to not even know when Spassky was champion doesn't say much for the writers. Also I read somewhere where they showed Fischer analyzing the first moves 1 h4 h5 in the pre release version. I hope that got cut before the release. Maybe they were going to have Fischer say something like 1 h4 'worst by test' or 1 h4 'typical Jew move'.|
|Sep-27-15|| ||RookFile: I just think they made a conscious decision to condense material. When you only have an hour and fifty four minutes to work with, you have to do things like that.|
|Sep-27-15|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: I agree with <RookFile> about how they made decisions to condense the story. I was very impressed by the movie, but it does twiddle a bit with details I consider secondary to the main story. I didn't understand why they had Fischer analyzing 1 h4 h5; maybe it was in there as a joke or just to mess with the minds of chessplayers watching the movie.|
|Sep-27-15|| ||Sally Simpson: I sneaked into the Edinburgh University and plugged a chess program into ARCHER|
(Academic Research Computing High End Resource)
The most powerful computer in the U.K.
I let it run for 24 hours...It's findings...
Best first move 1.h4 best reply 1...h5.
Looks the movie guys did some research after all.
You know the famous story behind the 'From Russia with Love' position and how the director altered the position of the Spassky-Bronstein game...
Spassky vs Bronstein, 1960
....because it was thought chess games (and therefore their positions) were copyright.
Is that myth still circling the movie industry where copyright is sacred so they had Fischer looking at an opening that was not in his MY60.
|Oct-11-15|| ||Howard: Not to sound stubborn/ignorant, but would someone try to answer this question:|
Was Fischer's position lost after 29...Bxh2.
Aylerkupp states that it was---but despite looking at his past posts, I don't see the forced win for Spassky.
Perhaps someone could tell me best play for best sides for, say, moves 30-35---maybe I can take it from there.
|Oct-17-15|| ||Howard: Still waiting....|
|Oct-18-15|| ||beatgiant: <Howard>
Have you already read all 26 pages of kibitzing? It's been analyzed ad infinitum.
|Oct-18-15|| ||Jack Kerouac: <AylerKupp> Spot on about 'grumble constantly throughout it.>
I've read every book about Fischer and played through every game of his available including obscure games not published commercially from simul's only found from left over score sheets of the players he played.
To me, best part of the movie was the Spassky character whom I thought played him quite well.
I verbally groaned at the 'beach scene'.|
|Oct-18-15|| ||MissScarlett: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln7g... Nice mash-up.|
|Oct-19-15|| ||Howard: The difficulty I'm having is wading through all this analysis, and separating the wheat from the chaff.|
Starting with the July, 2012 comments, AylerKupp seems to say that Spassky had a forced win after 29...Bxh2. But I still don't see it.
|Oct-19-15|| ||AylerKupp: <Howard> I'll try to help you out. All the analysis I posted is "wheat", all the anaysis everyone else has posted is "chaff". :-)|
And remember that it is not "my" analysis, it's Rybka's. I hope some day to take the time to validate Rybka's analysis with the analysis of other, and stronger, engines. And maybe someone will beat me to it, that way I won't have to take the time to do it.
For one thing, I don't see why it matters so much. I think that most will agree that before 29...Bxh2 Fischer had an easy draw and after 29...Bxh2 he had, at best, a hard draw. So, ignoring real or imagined psychological considerations, how can 29...Bxh2 be considered anything other than a blunder or, at best, a miscalculation?
|Oct-19-15|| ||AylerKupp: <Howard> But if you point me to those analysis of mine/Rybka that you are having trouble following (please don't say all of them!) I'll try to clarify them. But remember, the only thing worse than wading through other people's chaff is wading through your own chaff.|
|Oct-19-15|| ||beatgiant: <Howard>
I am in the camp that believes White is winning, and I have posted replies to some of the drawing attempts.
But, I think most would agree that you can't prove anything here without <wading through all the analysis> as you posted. This isn't the type of position with a small number of short forcing lines.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 26 OF 26 ·