< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 37 ·
|Mar-16-17|| ||Petrosianic: <Howard: Any updates as to whether Fischer's position was indeed lost after 29...Bxh2?!>|
Does it matter? It's like pointing out that many of Tal's sacrifices were unsound. If they posed problems that couldn't be solved during the game, then that was their point. If they were solved 40 years later, he wouldn't care.
In this case, Bxh2 presented Fischer with problems he couldn't solve during the game.
|Mar-16-17|| ||QueensideCastler: Howard: My analysis is forced and the result is fortress draw. |
Please show me how white can prevent that fortress formation to be created.
The easiest path to draw is in that line i posted.
|Mar-17-17|| ||Petrosianic: You didn't actually present any analysis, only referred to it (Stockfish says...). The issue won't be solved with vague assurances, especially after 40 years, and, as pointed out, computer analysis obtained decades later is irrelevant anyway to understanding how the game should have turned out.|
|Mar-18-17|| ||QueensideCastler: It looks like Komodo 10.4 add more insight into this complex endgame. |
I have to withdraw my draw claim, after analysis with Komodo 10.4 (released 14th march) Komodo demonstrate black wins in the variation i posted. So not everything is verified 100% yet.
8...e5 is a losing blunder.
8...Kd6 seems to hold the position together.
click for larger view
Komodo sees no breakthrough if pawn on e3 is captured instead of g3.
click for larger view
|Mar-18-17|| ||pth: <HeMateMe: I've learned that I'm like NN.> NN's longevity is impressive :)|
|Mar-18-17|| ||offramp: Possibly the world's worst ever famous chess game.|
|Mar-18-17|| ||perfidious: <offramp: Possibly the world's worst ever famous chess game.>|
One thing sure: it is one of the most over-kibitzed. I count 32 pages; there are doubtless more. (laughs)
|Mar-18-17|| ||offramp: I am up to 34 pages. Some all-time great games have half as many.|
|Jun-26-17|| ||Richard Taylor: <offramp: I still find it incredible that this, the <worst> game of the 1972 match, should have attracted so much analysis.
It reminds me of the War Between the Little-Endians and the Big-Endians. Such a vast amount of wasted, directionless effort, turning cucumbers into sunlight, then back into cucumbers.
<If one has a computer that is doing @#$%-all, then let it do some work on astronomy, or cancer research, not piss-arsing around on the worst game of Fischer's last-ever serious event.|
He might be a fisher of men but he is not God.>
I approve the reference to one of my favourite books, Gulliver's travels, a great satire. But I got interested in this as it has always been known as an error or a blunder. I think that Fischer did miscalculate but it seems on my computer that if he had played after g3 then Ke7 to centralise the K and then give up the B at the right time that the pundits at the time were wrong and it is interesting as it reflects on the psychology and the events leading up to the match. I thought that even as it went, playing it today, Fischer came close to coming back into the game. It is an example of resilience but that said I think Fischer was shocked by his move. Mind you Carlsen "did a Fischer" against Anand but got away with it...
But Fischer certainly wasn't a God. He is America's Chess God. He is an enigma....sometimes I hate him with a vengeance and sometimes his fate, his life, all of it makes me cry...he was an incredible person and possibly the greatest at the time: he is certainly one of the greatest chess players...
All the rest argues the futility of chess itself...after all even if we cure cancer what then, there will be some other misery and Swift showed that in his book as with those people who were growing backwards...the satire was against scientists and I think science over all...in fact all science does is to describe things: the deep questions are never answered and never will be. That leaves philosophy and religion which I think are both essential...life is a constant struggle and like music or art or any hobby or even sex or whatever, dabbling with computers to investigate this strange game in perhaps the most dramatically bizzarre chess match ever is as good as anything...
But I can also see your anger....
That said is it really his "worst game"? For the patzers it's his best in a way...sure the games he won games which (those paradoxically with the QGD and indeed also with the Benoni) were more beautiful and probably more sound...although in the Tartakower Def game Spassky played a move he was told probably wasn't the best before the game: but what I find very moving apart from the beauty of that game is that Spassky applauded Fischer...that was wonderful!....
Now when he told us, when we asked about Fischer, that "I love Fischer" it was sincere and one understands well. In the movie 'Pawn Sacrifice' the question of who his father was and Spassky's insight that in a sense he feared winning is a brilliant point...
I think that in a strange way Spassky felt that he wasn't just facing a chess genius (he was or is one also in his own way) but that the man was extraordinary...the move Bxh7 while an error has the nature of, I don't know, something intangible...something like a Swiss Gambit, something quite strange...of course fatigue and so on and the noise etc that affected him were factors also but there was that extra factor....
Fischer to paraphrase Auden on Yeats: 'Was hurt into madness'
|Aug-11-17|| ||QueensideCastler: 29 ... ♝xh2? Ι do not propose to speculate as to why he did this - quite enough people have done that already. Ι am interested in the play that followed.|
Fischer's 29 ... ♝xh2? was a bad move. It gave White excellent
winning chances without creating any compensating chances for Black.
But 29 . . . ♝xh2? doesn't lose. It required a couple more
errors (37 . . . ♚e4?!, 39 ... f5?) before Black was clearly lost.
Various attempts have been made to show that Fίscher was lost after 29 . . . . ♝xh2, but none of these seems to work.
Olafsson's 36 ♔g4! comes very close to wίnnίng: but it appears that even
that only draws agaίnst best defence.
It has become abundantly clear that any attempt to solve a really
complίcated endgame is goίng to be very difficult and tίme consumίng.
Analysίs will be published in varίous places - thίs will be
refined by new analysis. So the process will go on until people are
reasonably satisfied with the end product. But what relevance has this got to actual chess playing?
Because of an "accident (it occurred in a World Championship match) people have tried to solve it.
Speelman is only examining game continuation and majority of it's subvariations. He does not look upon 30...a6 and 30...Ke7
You can't draw conclusion before examining all relevant sub-branches.
Source: Analysing The Endgame, Jonathan Speelman [Batsford, 1988]
|Aug-11-17|| ||Howard: All I know is that judging from the 37 pages (so far) of kibitzing, it's apparently not clear as to whether Spassky had a forced win after Fischer's 29th move. For decades, the firm consensus seemed to be "no"---Fischer, in other words, still had a draw.|
But, in the last couple years, it appears that maybe Fischer was lost after the 29th move.
Time will tell...
|Oct-02-17|| ||funnyfamilystar: I'm pretty sure that when Fischer played his 29th move, the bishop on h2 can escape even when black plays what was played in the real side of things.|
|Oct-03-17|| ||diceman: <Petrosianic:
computer analysis obtained decades later is irrelevant anyway to understanding how the game should have turned out.>
another Petrosianic classic!
(at least he came out of the closet with his avatar)
|Nov-20-17|| ||fred1257: Fischer purposely knew it was wrong to take the poisoned rook pawn.....he just hate's draws and knew he was going to beat Spassky for the world tital anyway !!....he purposely threw that game hoping spassky would screw up !!|
|Nov-20-17|| ||Howard: Anyone who believes that "theory" probably also thinks that the Roman Polanski should wire money to California to pay for a five-star funeral for Charles Manson.|
Sharon Tate was Polanski's wife, for those of you who don't know the full story about Manson.
|Dec-03-17|| ||GT3RS: Fischer (1992) in reference to this game said that he was playing for the win. The Bxh2 move was obviously not a blunder like these patzers in the comment section claim. |
RJF made few more mistakes after that move which led to the loss.
Of course it's possible that he could've purposely thrown away the game to upset Spassky as someone pointed earlier. This is apparent when he didn't show up in Game 2 and played Benoni in Game 3.
|Dec-03-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: It was pure bluff, obviously.|
|Dec-03-17|| ||ZonszeinP: Fischer lost this game because Spassky was stronger. |
He was still confident and in good shape. Still believing that this match was a Chess feast.
And that both will create masterpieces in a sportsmanship and benelovent manner.....
Fischer was the best player in the world, but he had never beaten Spassky before and was psychologically inferior to him, therefore he needed to do something and quickly! In order to unsettle him.
No matter how nasty this "something" should be.
The nastier, the better.
That's why he didn't play the second game and "forced" Spassky to play the third under his own conditions.
That's the truth, and to believe the opposite is equivalent to expect Santa to arrive in his traîneaux and the lutins on the evening of the 24th, this month
|Dec-03-17|| ||GT3RS: Yeah Spassky was stronger than a guy who was 125 points rated higher than him. Haha. Good one.|
|Dec-04-17|| ||Howard: Fischer's 29...Bxh2 was a blunder for the simple, common-sense reason that this lemon turned a dead-drawn position into one in which Fischer had to fight tooth-and-nail for the draw.|
It's that simple!
|Dec-17-17|| ||ZonszeinP: ELO is a disastrous invention.
Now people play for ELO...
They sign their sheet of paper and write their ELO next to their names as social security number or something..
During the 60's nobody thought about ELO.
Spassky never said to himself "oh my! How can i beat someone 100 points higher!!"
He knew he wasn't
Not even Fischer thought about that
Do you really believe that Spassky was an under 2700 player???
|Dec-17-17|| ||john barleycorn: <ZonszeinP: ...
Do you really believe that Spassky was an under 2700 player???>
I personally do not think so. He was a fantastic player. But Spassky is Spassky and Elo is Elo. The amazement starts when people are thinking that "mental work" is as measurable as "manual work".
|Dec-17-17|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Chess is just chess. A horrible game. Elo rating is like a conversation: "Look here, I am far more sadomasochistic than you!"
"Oh yeah?? Come and get it!"|
|Dec-18-17|| ||ZonszeinP: Real chess is a real conversation|
|Dec-18-17|| ||RookFile: Botvinnik got his peak ELO rating of 2660 in 1971. Go figure. Of course, it's ridiculous, nobody thinks he wasn't stronger some 10 to 20 years prior.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 37 OF 37 ·