|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jan-10-09 |
| hot pawn: 29..Bxh5 must be the worst move Fischer ever played, even I would have seen that as a bad move. |
 |
| Jan-10-09 |
| WhiteRook48: wow, and the bishop gets trapped! Fischer blunder!! |
|
| Jan-10-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: <safar: If a draw was all Fischer wanted it was there for the asking. The position in drawn without the Bishop "scacrifice", so why take the chance in the first game for the World Championship? > Because you don't get to be world champion without taking chances. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. |
|
Jan-10-09
 |
| jackpawn: <AnalyzeThis> I disagree totally. The move was simply an unbelievable blunder. It gave Fischer absolutely no winning chances and he had to play perfect chess from that point on to achieve a draw. On the other hand if he had simply said "draw?" Spassky would have agreed immediately. There was no play in the position. |
|
| Feb-07-09 |
| WhiteRook48: hah! In the picture Fischer looks absolutely fatigued |
|
| Mar-06-09 |
| BISHOP TAL: Fisher was under huge pressure this 1st game he never played in a WC before.He never beat Spassky before but he new he could.Every little noise bugged him even the ones that wernt there.Fischer had to embarrass himself in order to get comfortable enough to walk that deep and dark forest where 2+2=5 the world was watching the U.S.was counting on him to win. His subconious told his told his concious you need some humility here.Hence we have Bxh7. |
|
| Mar-06-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: <jackpawn: I disagree totally. The move was simply an unbelievable blunder. It gave Fischer absolutely no winning chances and he had to play perfect chess from that point on to achieve a draw. On the other hand if he had simply said "draw?" Spassky would have agreed immediately. There was no play in the position. > Well, obviously Fischer made a mistake in calculation, and didn't deliberately strive for a position where he was hanging on for a draw by a knife's edge. If his idea had worked, the bishop capture would have amounted to ..Bxh2, ...h5, and ...h4, and white would be forced to play gxh4, freeing the bishop. The end result would be that black would have the <superior pawn strucuture>, therefore an advantage of some sort in the endgame. That was the point. Of course, there was a small tactical detail that Fischer missed in this case. |
|
| Mar-06-09 |
| BISHOP TAL: Sorry bout typo in last post no I diddnt spell fischer wrong lol.Actaully I read somwhere fischer thought he could save the bishop might of been Bobby Fischer goes to war R.I.P. Bobby may God have grace on your soul.And for those who think that is not possible cuase his remarks.Well he left like 20% of his 2nd biggest check to God how many rock thowers can say the same.Money talks. |
|
| Mar-27-09 |
| WhiteRook48: how can a Fischer overlook 30 g3? |
|
| Apr-27-09 |
| Dredge Rivers: <WhiteRook48> <How can Fischer overlook 30. g3 ?> Sadly, the only person who could answer that question is dead now. |
|
| Apr-27-09 |
| WhiteRook48: and that person is...Alekhine? |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Fischer didn't over look g3, that's silly. I think he reckoned on meeting 32. Kf3 with 32....h3, and 33. Kg4 with 33....Bg1. Now 34. Kxh3 Bxf2 and.... bad news, white has the in-between move 35. Bd2, and the bishop doesn't get out. I think it's this fact that Fischer initially missed. |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| whatthefat: <AnalyzeThis>
Almost certainly that's what happened.
But what I find most stunning about 29...Bxh2? is not so much the miscalculation involved as the poor intuition. To me, and I suspect many others, the move just looks wrong. On that basis, I don't think I could bring myself to play it without being absolutely sure that my analysis was watertight. And yet I'm certain Fischer's powers of intuition and calculation are infinitely superior to mine, so the whole event baffles me. |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: You're right, I'm sure.
But then again, Fischer was the first lunatic to play the ...Qb6 poisoned pawn Sicilian in world championship play. The same quality that allowed him to play that doomed him here. |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| WhiteRook48: (Game 1 of the Match of the Century) |
|
| Jun-04-09 |
| s0viet9: fischer should have played g5 on move 42 then he wins |
|
| Jun-04-09 |
| beatgiant: <s0viet9>
<fischer should have played g5 on move 42 then he wins>On 42...g5 43. Kg6, it looks to me like Spassky wins. What did you find for Black? |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| TheFocus: Regarding the move 29...Bxh2?, in a press conference in the 1992 match with Spassky, Fischer he made that move just to complicate the game. Of course, he miscalculated, but after this, he came back strong. |
|
| Jun-30-09 |
| TheFocus: Jonathan Speelmann gives a long analysis in his Analyzing the Endgame book that actually tries to prove a draw or a win for...Black.No one could have found his vaariations over the board, not even Fischer. |
|
Aug-31-09
 |
| zanshin: Like everyone else at the time, I was wondering about the soundness of <29...Bxh2?!>
click for larger viewI finally decided to plug the position into Rybka 3 for analysis. Surprisingly, 29...Bxh2 was the preferred move at lower ply levels (about d=16). So here's analysis of some of the candidate moves, with Bxh2 expressly included: [+0.11] d=24 29...Kf7 30.f4 g5 31.a4 Kg6 32.h3 h5 33.Ke4 f5 34.Kd4 b6 35.Bd2 (0:37.01) 246207kN [+0.12] d=24 29...a6 30.bxa6 bxa6 31.h3 Ke7 32.Kc4 Kd7 33.a4 Kc6 34.Bd2 Bc7 35.Bc3 e5 36.Bb4 f5 37.f3 Bb6 (0:40.22) 271009kN [+0.17] d=24 29...Bc5 30.Kc4 b6 31.f4 Kf7 32.a4 Kg6 33.Kd3 Kh5 34.Bd2 Bd6 35.h3 g5 36.Ke4 (0:46.27) 313472kN [+0.19] d=24 29...h5 30.h3 Ke7 31.f4 Bc5 32.a4 Kd6 33.Bb2 a6 34.bxa6 bxa6 35.Ke4 Bb4 36.g4 hxg4 37.hxg4 Kd7 38.Bd4 (0:49.57) 337007kN [+0.53] d=23 29...Bxh2 30.g3 Ke7 31.Bd2 h5 32.Ke4 h4 33.Kf3 Kd6 34.Kg2 hxg3 35.fxg3 Bxg3 36.Kxg3 Kd5 37.Kf3 Kc5 38.a4 Kc4 39.Be1 Kb3 40.a5 Kc4 41.Kg4 (0:32.13) 212152kN |
|
| Sep-10-09 |
| sfm: <whatthefat:But what I find most stunning about 29...Bxh2? is not so much the miscalculation involved as the poor intuition. To me, and I suspect many others, the move just looks wrong.> Not to me. Any move picking up a pawn in the endgame looks good by default, and will usually among the first moves to consider.
Of course, most of us know the technique of trapping a bishop grabbing on a(h)2(7), and again, the way to rescue it by breaking up the jail, usually with an a- or h-pawn.
So it has nothing to do with "poor judgement".
It is much more poor judgement to rely on dogmas, not seeing that one little difference can change the whole conclusion.
It simply a miscalculation, maybe the one pointed out by AnalyzeThis. A major one for a player like Fischer - but no player has ever been above such blunders. |
|
Oct-19-09
 |
| HeMateMe: they claim to have found a draw for Fischer, after the Bishop capture on h2, the analysis is on chess.com. They create a different set up for the two pawns on the queenside, which allows fischer to keep his king in opposition. I was watching some Fischer tape on utube, and he claims, I think in a press conference upon returning home, that Henry Kissinger never called him and asked him to play the match. ahhh...another interesting myth debunked. But President Nixon DID submit a football play to George Allen, whose Redskins were soon to play Miami in the Superbowl. George didn't use the suggested play. Maybe just one more person in Washington who thought Nixon was crazy. |
|
Oct-19-09
 |
| Eyal: <they claim to have found a draw for Fischer, after the Bishop capture on h2, the analysis is on chess.com.> Yes, it's based on an analysis by Jonathan Speelman of a side-line that was considered winning for White. The consensus was that <36.a4> is an inaccuracy by Spassky, that should have allowed Fischer to draw with accurate play (I think the last moment where a draw is still considered possible is 39...e5! instead of f5?). 
click for larger viewTimman, Olafsson, and Kasparov (who's apparently just quoting the previous analyses in OMGP) all claimed that in the diagram position - after 35...Kd6 - the move <36.Kg4> should be winning for White. However, it seems to be a draw after 36...Ke5 37.Kh5 <Ke4!> (Speelman's suggestion, instead of Kf5 given in previous analyses - Black sacrifices the pawn on g7) 38.Kg6 e5 39.Kxg7 f5 40.Kf6 f4 41.exf4 exf4 42.Bd2 f3 43.Be1 Kd5 44.Ke7 Kc4 45.a4 b6! (of course not 45...Kb3?? 46.a5) 46.Kd6 Kb3 47.Kd5 Kxa4 48.Kc4 Ka3 
click for larger viewAnd White can make no progress - if he takes his king to a6, Black king will be ready for him on c4. |
|
Oct-19-09
|
| HeMateMe: Yes, they said that by playing differently on the kingside, giving up the g pawn, black can draw the infamous game one of the match. Most interesting, i thought, was that black leaves his two queenside pawns on the same color as the bishop, which usually means you lose those pawns. But here, the bishop is stuck babysitting the passed f pawn, and black can't be forced away from whites b pawn. I just hope Spassky doesn't say that this new analysis is "the work of criminals conspiring against me!...." lol! |
|
| Nov-01-09 |
| Wayne Proudlove: Re: the infamous 29...Bxh2 blunder, is it possible that it was a move of psychological warfare, to throw a wrench into Spassky's thinking and nerves? It seems possible considering Fischer's temperament and eccentricity. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
and 
buttons, but it's much easier to simply use the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard.
