|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jan-25-08 |
| asiduodiego: Nice game!. The genius of Spassky made Fischer choke himself with the "poisoned pawn", but only this time... |
 |
Feb-29-08
 |
| Knight13: De wraak van Spassky! |
|
| Mar-06-08 |
| ghyanoki: A very good game by both players, Fischer had a bad move and paid for it. if it weren't that bad move it might have ended in a draw. |
|
Mar-08-08
 |
| A.G. Argent: <Knight13> Echt zoet wraak. |
|
| Jun-03-08 |
| LaFreaK: I think this is a Pawn grabbing variation :-),though it was only a pawn but it's a time wasting move, and it cost the game. The b-pawn is always poisonous for them even for a world champon Gazza.
Anand vs Kasparov, 1991 |
|
| Jun-03-08 |
| Riverbeast: I wonder if Spassky owed at least part of this win to Soviet team analysis...They knew he liked the poisoned pawn variation and almost certainly were cooking something up for it. At any rate, this would be the last poisoned pawn Fischer ever took! |
|
Jun-03-08
 |
| euripides: <river> of course one would have expected Spassky to be very well prepared in this variation. Geller, one of his seconds, knew it well enough to beat Fischer on the black side of it in the late 1960s. But the first time it came up in the match the opening was very bad for Spassky: Spassky vs Fischer, 1972
And in the current game, though there must have been some analytical work done in the interim, Spassky apparently took half an hour over move 14. So the role preparation played remains a bit obscure. |
|
| Jun-03-08 |
| RookFile: The was the first and only time that the Poisoned Pawn Sicilian did not work out for Fischer. Pretty amazing. |
|
Jun-03-08
 |
| talisman: <euripides> agree....still there is the question of move 13. WHY if you're going to play 14. |
|
| Jun-04-08 |
| RookFile: So, what would have happenned if Fischer played 15... Ne7? 16. Rd1 f5 with advantage for black? 16. a3 Qa4 17. f5 Qc6? |
|
Jun-04-08
|
| euripides: <rook> Yes. An earlier post by WMD cited this game as Black's play in the line: Qi Jingxuan vs Karpov, 1983 |
|
Jun-04-08
|
| talisman: <euripides> thanks for the game.enjoyed it.White plays  -h1 in that game also.it's one of those moves that i just don't get. |
|
Jun-04-08
|
| euripides: <tal> you may well be right. 13.Kh1 has a good record, and 12...Nc6 has gone out of fashion: Games Like Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 |
|
Jun-04-08
|
| euripides: ... Kasparov preferred 12...Nd7 (which I find was also recommended in Alexander's annotations in 1972): Short vs Kasparov, 1995 |
|
| Mar-10-09 |
| jaimdelg: This was the only time in his life that Fischer lost while playing the “Poisoned Pawn” variation as Black. On the other hand, days before, Spassky was beaten for the first time in his life too, when Spassky played his pet variation: the Tartakower variation of the Queen’s Gambit Declined. That’s was when Fischer played for the first time in his life a “Queen’s Pawn Game” (d4). |
|
| Mar-10-09 |
| jaimdelg: Here, White offers a pawn sacrifice and in exchange White will keep the black queen trapped and “out of the game” for several moves while White hopes to devastate Black’s position before Black can bring its queen back into the game. On the other side, Black is willing to take the “poisoned” pawn hoping to defend well and try to bring its queen back to the fight as soon as possible. In other words, if Black decides to “eat” the poisoned pawn and then can bring its queen back to the game, Black in effect “neutralizes” the poison without any harm, but if Black “eats” the poisoned pawn and then White doesn’t allow him to bring its queen back to the battle on time, then Black has been “poisoned” by the pawn that he took. This variation is not for everyone, who instead could choose not to take the pawn. I’ve seen many times how White allows the black queen back into action too soon, only to see himself now down a pawn, and with the game in the verge of the endgame. |
|
| May-04-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 23...a5 might be better |
|
| Jul-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: and Fischer was still playing on in a lost position |
|
| Aug-13-09 |
| WhiteRook48: 9 Nb3?!?! |
|
| Sep-23-09 |
| KraziPawn: It wasn't often that Fischer was crushed like a grape at a winery. When Homer nods, I imagine a single dip of the head, for some strange reason. Fischer must have been head banging during this game. |
|
| Sep-23-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: Only time in his career that he went down with the Poisoned Pawn. That is amazing! |
|
| Sep-23-09 |
| KraziPawn: AnalyzeThis, I think this game is the epitome of how when you combine the two words, 'human' and 'brilliant', you'll sometimes find the human side takes its toll, and thus a genius goes down in the prettiest of flames. It was a bone-crushing defeat of a terrific nature.
Hats off to Spassky on this one. |
|
| Sep-29-09 |
| Capabal: This is a fun game, though I can only really follow the last 7 moves or so after black is in deep trouble already. But how exactly did he get there? I spent some time using Rybka to see where exactly black may have made a big mistake that got him in that hole. As far as the engine can see, black's trouble seems to accumulate gradually between moves 12 and 20, partly because of his persistent refusal to play h4 earlier, which he could have done on move 12, or 13 or even on move 17 to hold. Instead, he does it on move 18, but by then it is no longer the best option. In any case, the swing in the engine's evaluation occurs in small increments on moves 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 by black. Note that even after 15...d5 black seems to be OK (+0.04). It looks like a case of gradual accumulation of inaccuracies over a series of 7 moves or so. (Of course 22... Qb5 instead of Qd8 seems pretty bad, but by then it didn't really matter, the last chance to save the game was probably move 18-19, according to these analysis) For whatever is worth, the following is Rybka's best line at all those positions, to a depth of 16 ply. It seems pretty odd that none of the actual moves by black coincides with the egine's first choice in any of those positions (except on move 16, which is rather forced). Interesting that the engine keeps insisting on h4 for black on three separate occasions between moves 12 and 17. but Fischer refused to play it. (May there be some long term problem with it that the engine is not seeing?) Position after 12.0-0
Rybka analysis: 12... h4 13. Rfd1 Be7 14. Nb1 Qa4 15. Qe3 h3 16. g3 Nd7 17. Nc3 Qa3 18. Rd4 Nc5
19. Rad1 Rb8 (-0.70)
Position after 13.Kh1
Rybka analysis: : 13... h4 14. Nb1 Qb4 15. Qe3 Ne7 16. N1d2 Bd7 17. Nc4 Nc8 18. Rfd1 Qa4 19. Rd4
Qc6 20. Nca5 Qxc2 21. Rd2 (-0.41)
Position after 14.Nb1
Rybka analysis: : 14... Qa4 15. Nc3 Qb4 16. a3 Qb6 17. Na4 Qc7 18. Qe3 Rd8 19. Nb6 h4 20. Bg4 Ne7
21. f5 e5 22. c4 Bc6 23. Nd5 Bxd5 24. cxd5 Bh6 (-0.37) Position after 15.Qe3
Rybka analysis: : 15... Ne7 16. a3 Qa4 17. Nc3 Qc6 18. Rad1 (-0.42) Position after 17.c4
Rybka analysis: : 17... h4 18. Nd4 exd5 19. Nc3 O-O-O 20. cxd5 Nf5 21. Nxf5 Bxf5 22. Bd3 Bxd3 23.
Qxd3 h3 24. g3 Bc5 25. Rfc1 Kb8 26. Rab1 Qa5 27. a4 Ba3 (+0.04) Position after 18.Qd3
Rybka analysis: : 18... O-O-O 19. a3 Qd6 20. N1d2 Be7 21. Ne4 Qc7 22. Rab1 h4 23. Nd4 h3 24. g3
Kb8 25. Nxf5 exf5 26. Nf2 (+0.27)
Position after 19.Bg4
Rybka analysis: : 19... O-O-O 20. Bxf5 exf5 21. a3 Qb6 22. N1d2 Kb8 23. Nd4 h3 24. g3 Bc5 25.
Rfb1 Qc7 26. N2b3 Rc8 27. Nxf5 Rhe8 (+0.56)
Position after 20Nd1
Rybka analysis: 20... Rc8 21. a3 Qa4 22. dxe6 Bxe6 23. Bxe6 fxe6 24. Qg6+ Ke7 25. Nd4 Qe8 26.
Qd3 h3 27. g4 Kd7 28. Rae1 Kc7 29. Rxe6 Qa4 30. c5 Nb5 31. Nxb5+ Qxb5 32. Qxb5
axb5 33. Ne4 Ra8 34. Nc3 Ra6 (+1.53) |
|
| Sep-29-09 |
| Capabal: Speaking of going down in flames, the following game (Svidler-Vallejo Pons) is one of the most spectacular finishes I have ever seen. The final combination by black is just unbelievable. Svidler vs Vallejo-Pons, 2004 |
|
| Sep-29-09 |
| KraziPawn: No doubt an attack for the ages.
I know who Svidler is, but not Vallejo.
Once white was forced to play a3, I just knew something horrific/pretty was going to happen. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 23.Qc3
