|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Nov-11-08 |
| AnalyzeThis: Fischer was awesome with the Benoni. If you look it up, he had an absolutely ridiculous winning percentage with it, higher than just about anybody. He didn't play it <that> often, but seemed to know just when it would be a great, unwelcome surprise weapon. |
 |
| Nov-12-08 |
| ughaibu: Here's his only loss: Spassky vs Fischer, 1992 a great king walk by Spassky, and here's his only draw: Kraidman vs Fischer, 1968 he was lucky not to lose. Play over the games in which he used it against big names, it wasn't his most convincing opening. |
|
Jan-12-09
 |
| Eyal: <Play over the games in which he used it against big names, it wasn't his most convincing opening.> http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... Putting aside the games of 1992, what seems common to most of the Benoni games against "big names" (except for the one with Uhlmann, in which White simply blundered a pawn in the opening and then collapsed rather quickly) is that Fischer took some big risks - f5 against Najdorf, the Qe5-d4 maneuver against Gligoric, Nh5 in this game - and they paid off. It's probably not a coincidence - Fischer seems to have had a better feeling for the middlegame dynamics of Benoni setups than his opponents, even if some of his ideas were revealed as dubious in analysis after the games. |
|
Jan-31-09
 |
| elAurens: Fischer took 9 minutes on his famous 11 ... Nh5. See the rest of the times at:
http://www.crackteam.org/2008/11/02... |
|
| Mar-24-09 |
| ewan14: Sorry , I was amazed to learn that Nh5 was already known ( and I think to Spassky's seconds ) |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| WhiteRook48: why 12 Bxh5? |
|
Jun-20-09
 |
| talisman: <ewan14> you're right, But; it still caught spassky by surprise!... forgive me but i'm trying to remember Geller's reaction and i'm drawing a blank. |
|
Jun-21-09
|
| talisman: <SomecallmeTim> i think you are right. Too much lost of material. |
|
| Aug-18-09 |
| tagbay: although he was a very strange person!
he is still a very smart guy and the greatest chess player ever. and if he didnt become too mad he could become the champion for more than 23 years and a rich healthy probably a multi-millioner GM. and I bet he would become a very good politician ! |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| tentsewang: Mad Genius Fischer was playing psychological game with his opponent. Fischer likes to torment his opponent till he chokes. |
|
| Aug-29-09 |
| Dredge Rivers: <Spassky> NOW, I have that whack job on the ropes! OOOPS! :) |
|
| Sep-06-09 |
| A.G.T.HUTAHAYAN: 42.Ke1 Black Queen c2,if 42 Ke3 Black Queen Qd1!? |
|
Sep-06-09
 |
| birthtimes: In a must-win game, Fischer comes out of the opening with a queenside majority of pawns, control of the center, a kingside attack, and the bishop-pair... |
|
| Sep-21-09 |
| KraziPawn: Well, well, well. For all of the hoopla the Russians made about Fischer losing his way in unfamiliar positions, Spassky, (the Russian World Champion), proved to be no better. Fischer's 11th move, Nh5, is clearly a discombobulation of the Russia's *at the time* supercilious premise that they are superior to the world. May such arrogance never go unpunished. |
|
| Sep-23-09 |
| DWINS: <Well, well, well. For all of the hoopla the Russians made about Fischer losing his way in unfamiliar positions, Spassky, (the Russian World Champion), proved to be no better. Fischer's 11th move, Nh5, is clearly a discombobulation of the Russia's *at the time* supercilious premise that they are superior to the world. May such arrogance never go unpunished.> I don't think that Spassky lost his way at all because of 11...Nh5! He thought for 20 minutes and then responded with the strongest continuation. He simply made a mistake with 18.g3? instead of 18.Bg3 which practically equalizes. |
|
| Sep-23-09 |
| KraziPawn: DWINS 11...Nh5 put Spassky in unfamiliar territory, where a few moves later, he lost his way. I was merely pointing out the irony.
The Soviets, especially Geller, were almost gleeful in how they proclaimed that Fischer would often lose his way in unfamiliar positions.
Of course at the highest level, an unfamiliar position is every chess players enemy. The Soviets somehow failed to understand this,,,,, |
|
| Sep-23-09 |
| DWINS: <KraziPawn>, "Losing his way" implies that one doesn't understand the position and comes up with an inferior plan. Spassky clearly understood what was going on as he came up with the strongest continuation. His blunder on move 18 had nothing to do with losing his way. It simply was a blunder as happens to everyone who has ever played the game. |
|
| Sep-23-09 |
| KraziPawn: DWINS, are you implying that Fischer was prone to not understanding positions?
I reiterate, the Russians always thought that Fischer would lose his way in unfamiliar positions.
I put forth that all Grand Masters are prone to losing their way in unfamiliar positions.
For example, Kamsky vs Kasparov, Dortmund, 1992, Kasparov, as black in a King's Indian, unleashed a wicked bishop sacrifice/offer on f4, on move 20.
It was vintage Kasparov home prep. However, even after coming up with the variation at home, and having all the time at his leisure to study the varitation, Kasparov still soon lost his way and the game. This despite Kasparov surprising Kamsky (OTB) with the bischop offer.
Yes, I turned things around to make a point. If Kasparov can be familiar with a position and still lose, then any player in the history of the game can lose in an unfamiliar situation.
Back to the Spassky - Fischer game; Spassky lost his way in an unfamiliar position, as you unwittingly state, on move 18 with g3 instead of the text. However, it was Fischer's 11th move that began the whole 'uncharted' waters direction. Once Spassky found himself in uncharted waters, he went wrong almost immediately.
I fully understand that Fischer didn't discover 11....Nh5, however, it still put Spassky into an unfamiliar situation.
That's all it took for the 'beginning of the end.' |
|
| Sep-25-09 |
| DWINS: <KraziPawn>, WOW! Did you even read my posts? I never mentioned Fischer once. I'm simply responding to your erroneous assertion that Spassky "lost his way" in an unfamiliar position. As I said before, Spassky found the correct continuation and later on blundered. However, his blunder had nothing to do with being in an unfamiliar position. I think the crux of our disagreement is what it means to "lose your way in an unfamiliar position". By your definition, any blunder at all is caused by "losing your way in an unfamiliar position". I disagree. As I explained in my second post, "Losing your way" implies that one doesn't understand the position and comes up with an inferior plan. That is not the case in this particular game. |
|
| Sep-25-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: <I don't think that Spassky lost his way at all because of 11...Nh5! He thought for 20 minutes and then responded with the strongest continuation. He simply made a mistake with 18.g3? instead of 18.Bg3 which practically equalizes.> There are two things wrong with your post, Dwins. Spassky definitely lost his way because of Fischer's original continuation. The first is, you seem to believe that it should be a goal of white's to equalize from the opening. The second is, the veteran Gligoric showed later how this concept can be virtually refuted: Gligoric vs Kavalek, 1972
None of this detracts from Fischer's creativity, but it would appear that it was Spassky, more so than Fischer, would could not find his way in 'unfamiliar' settings, at least in this game. |
|
| Sep-25-09 |
| DWINS: <AnalyzeThis>, You make a much stronger case than <KraziPawn>, based on the Gligoric - Kavalek game. However, I still don't think Spassky "lost his way". He was faced with an opening innovation and came up with an equalizing continuation, which he later messed up at move 18. A player who truly lost his way would not have been able to come up with a correct plan. Spassky was certainly outplayed in the opening. When hit with an opening novelty, finding an equalizing continuation is to be considered a success. Then you go home and analyze the heck out of the novelty. This is a far stretch from saying that I believe that it should be a goal of white's to equalize from the opening. Anyway Gentlemen, I believe that much of this disagreement is of a semantic nature, and since I believe that reasonable people can disagree reasonably, I'm going to leave this as is. Thanks for the interesting discussion. |
|
Sep-25-09
 |
| euripides: According to the evidence in 'Russians against Fischer', the Russian team had analysed Nh5 and prepared something involving b3 and Bb2. Spassky said he forgot the analysis, though in the next game he simply decided to go his own way so this may have been an excuse. Spassky may have felt happier leaving his prepared variation and trusting his instincts at the board. Nh5 had been played in a very similar position by Timman. The reason some of the Soviet players thought Fischer would be vulnerable in unfamiliar positions was that he had a relatively narrow repertoire. Petrosian suggested that this approach had worked well in the first half of his match. |
|
Sep-25-09
|
| euripides: ... actually against Timman:
Timman vs Ljubojevic, 1972 |
|
| Sep-25-09 |
| KraziPawn: DWINS, of course I read your post. Although, I fear you have missed the point.
I reject the notion that when Fischer went wrong, it was because "he often lost his way in unfamiliar positions." -As the Russians love to claim- While when someone like Spassky goes wrong, it's not because he lost his way, it was because he blundered.
It's a double standard.
The plan chosen by Spassky, 18. g3 wasn't a blunder in the sense of overlooking a tactical shot that drops a piece. Spassky simply chose the wrong plan. In a nutshell, he lost his way in an unfamiliar position.
11....Nh5 was clearly the catalyst. |
|
| Sep-25-09 |
| AnalyzeThis: I looked at what you just wrote, Krazi, and I wouldn't change a single word in your last post. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
|
|
Algebraic edition, 2008
|
|
|
