< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|May-19-13|| ||RookFile: I think RV's analysis shows that Fischer had a bad day for this game. Certainly his opening judgement was vindicated and his results overall with the poisoned pawn Sicilian were exceptional.|
|May-19-13|| ||Olavi: In a practical game an attacking player would be unlikely to take the b7 pawn. Nei suggests 17.c4 Rc8 18.Nc3 Qc6 19.Rab1, possibly Spassky's intention as Nei was one of the seconds.|
|May-16-14|| ||Llew: to say that his overall results were exceptional is a gross understatement - this game is Fischer's ONLY loss(!) in the PP variation. definitely a bad day for greatest of all time|
|May-16-14|| ||Petrosianic: Technically, Fischer had one other Poisoned Pawn Loss. Against Geller, but Fischer was playing White in that game.|
This is his only loss with the variation as Black because he played it so seldom, and, until 1972, only against weaker players. Other than Spassky, Fischer played the line against Parma (+1-0=2), Bilek, Tringov, Mazzoni, and Kavalek. The Kavalek game (a draw) is the most interesting game of that bunch.
|May-16-14|| ||Howard: Which Geller game was that ?|
|May-16-14|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: Fischer-Geller, Monte Carlo 1967.|
|May-16-14|| ||keypusher: <Petrosianic> <This is his only loss with the variation as Black because he played it so seldom, and, until 1972, only against weaker players.>|
He didn't get a lot of chances. Zero chances against super-GMs, with the exception of Spassky. After he started playing the Poison Pawn in 1961, the database shows just 14 games with the position after 7.f4, including three from the 1972 match.
|May-16-14|| ||Petrosianic: He got a lot of chances, but his main defense was 7...Be7. Qb6 was one of the secondary lines. Were it the primary line, one would assume there'd be a loss or two prior to 1972.|
|May-16-14|| ||keypusher: <Petrosianic: He got a lot of chances, but his main defense was 7...Be7.> |
Until 1961, yes. He played 7....Be7 a lot in the 50s. But of the 14 games I referenced 1961-1972, 9 were poison pawns (and one of the ...Be7 games transposed to the PPV).
|May-16-14|| ||perfidious: There was a running battle with Gligoric in 7....Be7 until Fischer surprised his friend by responding 1....e5 to 1.e4 one day (Gligoric vs Fischer, 1960); thereafter, Gliga opened 1.d4 in their games as White and gave his redoubtable opponent a lot of trouble.|
|Aug-22-14|| ||ChessYouGood: Good to see dominating play by the superior player, Boris, who had enough faith in his ability to remain competing|
|Aug-22-14|| ||perfidious: <ChessYouGood: Good to see dominating play by the superior player, Boris....>|
Great sense of humour.
<....who had enough faith in his ability to remain competing>
Sure he did--trouble was, after losing the thirteenth game in a titanic battle, he drove his challenger to the wall and could still win no game after this one.
If you consider two games won outright of twenty played, against seven losses, evidence that that player is the stronger, best of luck. You must have been a brilliant debater in your day.
|Aug-22-14|| ||Howard: Perhaps what ChessYouGood actually meant was that despite being down by three points going into the 11th game, Spassky nevertheless steeled himself and won.|
I'll add this comment---when Spassky jumped to a 2-0 lead, a lot of people no doubt thought that it would be an arduous task for Fischer to overcome that deficit but little was anyone to know...........that for the remainder of the match, Spassky was to win only ONE more game--period !
Be honest---how many people could have anticipated that fact at the time ?
|Aug-22-14|| ||Petrosianic: <Be honest---how many people could have anticipated that fact at the time ?>|
Suspected it, maybe. Predicted it, probably not. The same thing happened in 1963. After winning Game 1, who would have predicted that Botvinnik would only win one more game? Not many. But you sometimes get extreme results in even a long match, so I doubt anyone was flabbergasted either.
|Aug-22-14|| ||perfidious: Might be better for us to stick to facts than to take excursions into the thought process of someone who is obviously lacking in knowledge of these great champions.|
|Aug-25-14|| ||coldsweat: Spassky was a great chess player, the reigning world champion, and this game shows him being strong and creative over the board.|
I love his firm refusal to trade pieces with Fischer, which Bobby was desperately trying to make him do. In this, he kept the initiative, and his opponent on his heels.
I love seeing fully developed engagements like this, with pawns advanced deep into enemy territory. Through move 22 there had been only a couple of minor exchanges!
When Boris seemingly sacrificed his Bishop with his twenty-third move, I almost wet my pants! Later, I got the feeling that his 27.Qf6! stunned the beast from Brooklyn.
He outplayed his brash challenger on his own turf, just as he had done to Spassky a few games earlier.
How boring computer-generated games are, at least to me, compared to the creativity of humans struggling against one another such as is displayed here!
|Aug-25-14|| ||perfidious: 'Beast From Brooklyn' is an appellation describing Fischer which, I must confess, never occurred to me.|
|Aug-26-14|| ||Petrosianic: <When Boris seemingly sacrificed his Bishop with his twenty-third move, I almost wet my pants!>|
We really didn't need to know that. Especially since for the players themselves, the game was already over by that point. What did you expect? 23. Qxb5 Bxb5, and White has both Bishop and Exchange hanging?
If Fischer had still had any thought at all of holding the game, why 24...h3, rather than Qxf1+, at least getting a Rook for the Queen instead of giving it up for nothing. When you were soiling yourself, the players were already just going through the motions. The really exciting part had happened earlier.
|Aug-22-15|| ||BarcelonaFirenze: can any of you guys explain me the purpose of 11,...,h5, please?|
|Aug-22-15|| ||offramp: <BarcelonaFirenze: can any of you guys explain me the purpose of 11,...,h5, please?>|
After white plays 11.Be2,
click for larger view
he is intending to play 12.Bh5.
click for larger view
Fischer thought that was worth preventing, and he did so by playing 11...h5.
|Aug-22-15|| ||Nerwal: <can any of you guys explain me the purpose of 11,...,h5, please?>|
It's a standard move in the Rauzer structure with gxf6. The main point is that ♗h5 is annoying in many circumstances :
* when White plays f5 threatening fxe6
* Black cannot go 0-0-0 because f7 hangs
* after 0-0 Black cannot play things like ♔h8 and ♖g8 because f7 hangs again.
That said, in that specific position many strong players have successfully tried to go without h5.
|Aug-22-15|| ||BarcelonaFirenze: Offramp, Nerwal, thank you very much.|
|Dec-30-15|| ||ChessYouGood: Massacre|
|Feb-22-16|| ||ZonszeinP: 14-Nb1....is one of my favourite moments in chess history...:) :) :)|
|Aug-07-16|| ||Albion 1959: One of Fischer's pet lines is crushed ! He got into a horrible mess and was unable to extricate his queen. However, unless I have missed something here / on move 17 Fischer played Nf5. Why could he not have played Qd6 instead? The Queen can now retreat safely, okay so Spassky's position is better. If he continues with c4, then Fischer has the counter Nf5!? This was the last real chance that Fischer had to rescue the queen. If on move 19. Qb6 instead of Nd6,then 20. Bxf5 exf 21. Re1+ leaves Fischer positionally crushed ! Surely 17. Qd6 was his best chance and had to be better than what followed ?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·