|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Feb-13-03 |
| drukenknight: This game mentioned by ks as one of his favorite ALek def. Mine too. Dont take 21...Kxf7 it is very bad. 18 Qe1 I think lets the air out after 18...Bh4
Korchnoi suggested 19 h4 in order to get the N to safety. Hmmm. why not just 18 exd5 and bust up all those pawns for the N? |
 |
| Feb-14-03 |
| LemurWarfare: I can see why 21...Kxf7 is bad, but I don't see why 18 exd5 is better than using the knight. If 18 exd5, then 18...Qxc3 winning the knight, best white can do is push the black queen back onto the side. |
|
| Feb-14-03 |
| drukenknight: I think 18 exd is better because if you do it that way he can disconnect 4 pawns for the N instead of 2, the way he played it. ANother reason it may be better. 18...Qxc3 looks forced. Otherwise the B will bang the R on the long diagonal. Hmm, that tells me something, lines that are forceful are much more likely to be the main line especially in case like this where the game is getting violent. ANother reason. This game was very close we all agree. But spassky was down a N much of the game, he had 5 connected pawns to 4. Hmmm, N is minus 3; +1 for the pawns. A total of -2; spassky was down 2 pts in material much of the game. Hmm coudl he have done better w/ 2 more pts? If he breaks up 4 pawns (18 exd5 Qxc3), then he will have 7 connected pawns to 3; minus the N, a net of zero. That's my reasoning, it's not very deep. |
|
| Feb-14-03 |
| ksadler: This may start a stoopid debate on whether Fischer is better than Kasparov (I hope it doesn't though), but do you find that players like Spassky, Tal and Larsen (among others) offered material more freely in exchange for initiative and attacks as compared to todays players? |
|
| Feb-14-03 |
| drukenknight: I think most would agree in the case of Tal, yes. Larsen sometimes you see him real agressive against weaker players but then he gets conservative vs Fischer. Spassky may have been the most succesful attacker of his generation being the foremost exponent of the kings gambit, the marshall attack, etc. He played risky/agressive lines, but Im not sure if he really made speculative sacrifices the way Tal did. They will tell you that the players from 100 years ago were more risk takers. But I dunno, maybe they were simply playing more kings gambits and more gambit lines in general. So okay, they sacrifice a N for a couple of pawns in a kings gambit, but the line is so well known how risky was it? I.e. maybe they just played well known gambit lines that they knew were fairly safe. |
|
| Dec-04-03 |
| Dick Brain: I don't know the refutation now, but I think I recall that Fischer's 21...Qd2 was not supposed to be good. Anybody know why? |
|
| Dec-04-03 |
| Spitecheck: That's news to me I was under the impression both ...Bg5 and ...Qd2 were the only moves that don't lose. Purdy compared it in these terms....A Roland for Spasski's Oliver, whatever that means. Spitecheck |
|
| Dec-04-03 |
| Spitecheck: ahh... The Roland to Oliver phrase, I think it's similar to when an archer hit's the bullseye and the guy who goes after him splits the first guys arrow in half! Spitecheck |
|
| Dec-04-03 |
| Dick Brain: I'm sure you're right. I though I recalled an old analysis by somebody (Gligoric maybe) that Spassky might have had a potential winning plan in there later. |
|
Dec-04-03
 |
| Calli: A tremedous game somewhat forgotten because its a draw. I recall the players moved rapid fire after 18.Nxd5, sending the analysts in a tizzy tryng to figure out what was happening. The only real try at an improvement was 4.Rc7! dxe4! 25.Rxc6 e3 (Olafsson). Very complicated and no one proved it was win either. |
|
| Mar-03-04 |
| 731: This game has lots of exclamations marks in it, all around the same point too! sacrifice and counter-sacrifice, all ending in a peaceful draw! |
|
| Jul-08-04 |
| misguidedaggression: I always wondered who played this game! I found it on a sheet of paper in one of my father's old chess books. I figured from the knight sac on move 18 that it was too high level to be one of his games, but I never concidered that it was from this match. It's nice to be able to play through it without having to decode evil discriptive notation. 1.P-K4 N-KB3 :S |
|
| Dec-05-05 |
| The Bard of Avon: I know this sounds stupid, but why does Kxf7 lose? |
|
Dec-05-05
 |
| crafty: 21... xf7 22.  h5+ g6 23. xh7+ e8 24. xg6+ d7 25. exd5  (eval 1.61; depth 13 ply; 500M nodes) |
|
| Dec-22-05 |
| AlexanderMorphy: incredible game and a great game for analysing
|
|
| Dec-22-05 |
| AlexanderMorphy: yes i also agree that after Kxf7 white's central pawns will dominate and force black to give up material! |
|
| Jan-31-06 |
| babakova: Black liquidated nicely in this game. I didnt really consider Nxd5 when I chose between Nd7 or Qa5.. If black accepts it looks very scary indeed. |
|
Jul-11-06
 |
| al wazir: I wonder if Fisher considered the counter-sacrifice 18...Bxc5. It might have continued 19. dxc5 Qxc5+ 20. Kh1 exd5 21. exd5 Rd8 22. Rc1. |
|
Oct-31-06
 |
| Billy Ray Valentine: Has anyone run the position before White's 18th move through the computer? I've always wondered about this game. White's 18th move is sometimes given an (!), and sometimes given an (!?) in annotation. Also, 18. Qe1 is always thrown out as an alternative to 18. Nxd5. This game definitely had a lot of fireworks--ironic that it turned into a dull, drawish rook and pawn endgame. |
|
Feb-29-08
 |
| Knight13: 18. Nxd5! Now that's a move 99.99% of people wouldn't have played. |
|
| Mar-20-08 |
| MarkusKann: Good move Nxd5, because it give to spassky and absolutely control on the center of the board having too a two passed pawns |
|
Sep-14-08
 |
| JohnBoy: Is 30...Kf7 necessary? Why not swap rooks and then bring the king up? (30...Rxd6 31.cd6 Kf7) |
|
| Jan-23-09 |
| Bear With Me: Ray Keene featured this game in today's Times chess column: He suggests that on move 18 Spassky could have played Qe1, to defend the knight on c3, Fischer must be careful now, if Nbd7? Spassky can win with Nxd5!! Though after Qe1 the position is open to further analysis |
|
| Jul-01-09 |
| WhiteRook48: funny how Fischer couldn't win this |
|
| Sep-30-09 |
| KraziPawn: WhiteRook48, I'm amazed that Fischer drew this game. Spassky developed a rather nasty attack. Where exactly do you feel that Fischer had genuine winning chances? |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
