< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Aug-17-16|| ||maseras: 11...Nh5?!
nice. In my opinion, fischer has already knew that 11...Nh5?! is too risky. 12.Bxh5 gxh5 13.Nd1! or 13.Kh1 could be the end of World Championship Match for Fischer.
|Aug-17-16|| ||RookFile: Yes, Gligoric found this recipe, it makes black look bad. Here's one example:|
Gligoric vs Browne, 1972
I think that Fischer had played over so many games of Spassky's that he started to think like Spassky. For that reason, Nd1 didn't occur to Fischer because it was not the type of move Spassky would play.
|Aug-17-16|| ||RookFile: Here's another:
Gligoric vs Kavalek, 1972
|Aug-17-16|| ||Petrosianic: Clearly if he played Nh5, he did not believe it was not too risky to play.|
|Aug-17-16|| ||Howard: Mednis once wrote in Chess Life that various players "chipped away" (that was the expression he used) at Fischer's strange knight move over the next several years.|
|Aug-17-16|| ||RookFile: It's not like Spassky was an idiot. He played Nc4 and Ne3 with the idea of controlling f5. Evidently, one of the virtues of the unexpected Nd1 is that it allows (after a4) Ra3 and if needed, the rook on a3 can swing over to the kinside. The other is that white can also play the bishop to c3 and challenge the g7 bishop (this happens all the time in the Benko Gambit).|
|Sep-13-16|| ||ZonszeinP: But he (Spassky) was playing that game under very odd conditions.
To put it mildly|
|Dec-02-16|| ||Grbasowski: Unbelievable 11th Fischer's move!|
|Dec-02-16|| ||Petrosianic: Not good, just unbelievable.|
|Dec-02-16|| ||steinitzfan: I remember when this game was played. It was Fischer's first win against Spassky -- and what a game! For some reason, turning that 2-0 to 2-1 changed my whole outlook.|
|Dec-02-16|| ||Howard: But, wasn't 11...Nh5 later found to be overrated? Objectively, Fischer had better options, but it was the surprise value of that move that made it work---not the accuracy of the move itself.|
|Dec-08-16|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: Do you think we shall ever see another Benoni in a World Championship match again? An Alekhine? A Pirc? This match had them all, and the variety of openings stands in stark contrast to Carlsen-Karjakin. Not that one can say this is a bad thing; it just seems odd that the last match seemed so fixated on just a few openings.|
|Dec-08-16|| ||Petrosianic: <Howard: But, wasn't 11...Nh5 later found to be overrated? Objectively, Fischer had better options, but it was the surprise value of that move that made it work---not the accuracy of the move itself.>|
Not just the surprise value of the move, but the fact that Fischer got into a shouting match with Lothar Schmid while the game was in progress must have rattled Spassky at least a little. His opening play is very shaky, with moves like 15. Bd2 and 18. g3. He still manages to hang in for a long time, but he's got the short end of it all the way.
|Dec-08-16|| ||Olavi: While 11...Nh5 made a big impression, it wasn't such a novelty. An earlier game, a spiritual forerunner I think, was Timman vs Ljubojevic, 1972|
And in the Kings Indian similar moves had often been seen. Szabo vs Boleslavsky, 1950 first comes to mind though that one is not so close.
|Dec-08-16|| ||offramp: <An Englishman:...the variety of openings stands in stark contrast to Carlsen-Karjakin. Not that one can say this is a bad thing; it just seems odd that the last match seemed so fixated on just a few openings.>|
I thought <most> world championship matches were limited in their openings. The QGD is knpwn as the world championship opening.
The most opening-fixated match I can remember is not a world championship but a Candidates' Final. Can you guess?
It is the 1984 Candidates' Final between Kasparov & Smyslov. You can see the games at this excellent but unusually-monickered collection by User: whiteshark:
Game Collection: 99999_Kasparov-Smyslov 1984 Candidates final
|Dec-08-16|| ||perfidious: As I have noted elsewhere regarding this match, the great variety of openings adopted was a practical necessity for Fischer, given that he was facing the might of the Soviet chess establishment and its immense ability at ginning up theoretical innovations. As it was, some of Fischer's specialities came in for a hard time; see the fourth and eleventh games of the match.|
|Dec-09-16|| ||An Englishman: Good Evening: Excellent point about the Soviet chess machine <perfidious>, but they could not have felt any surprise concerning the Alekhine or the Benoni, given that Fischer first played these opening in the middle Sixties. He first played the Pirc in this match, and *that* must have shocked them, given his ridiculous success vs. 1...d6 and 1...g6. <offramp> is certainly right about the Alekhine-Capablanca match in terms of using the same opening, but in Botvinnik-Bronstein the players used different openings for the first six games!|
|May-02-17|| ||Wedontgetchess: I think it's hilarious how everyone is claiming that Nh5 is a mistake or an inaccuracy. Now in 2017 with stockfish 8, my computer claims Nh5 is the Best move with the other top moves being your regular mainline a6 and Ne5. So even if Nd1 is the apparent refutation (Stockfish 8 apparently doesn't like it) Nh5 is still the best move. Honestly I just hate engine analysis on positional moves such as Nh5 and wanted to see if Fischers move was actually not that good... apparently it is so that's that I guess. (If other moves are played first like a6 a4 or the other mainlines then yes Nh5 is an inaccuracy; subtlety and move order matters apparently).|
|May-02-17|| ||Helios727: What happens after 42. Ke3 ?|
|May-02-17|| ||beatgiant: <Helios727>
The reply is the same as it was in 2008:
<Jun-18-08 Some call me Tim: If 42. Ke3 Qd1 wins by force. Any B move is followed by Qf3+ which is either mate or forces mate quickly. If 43. Qc3 Qf3+ 44. Kd2 Qe2#. If 43. Qa1 Qf3+ 44. Kd2 Qe2+ 45. Kc3 Qe5+ wins the Q.>
|May-02-17|| ||tamar: 42...Qd1 43 Qb2 c3 44 Qxc3 Qf3+ 45 Kd2 Qe2# is a version of the 43 Qc3 line|
Once that square is occupied .it is mate with Qa2 or Qb4 if the King goes to d4
|May-02-17|| ||tamar: Sorry hand held device Qe2# or Qe4#|
|May-02-17|| ||PawnSac: < Helios727: What happens after 42. Ke3 ? >|
42.Ke3 Qd1 then if white tries to save the bishop..
a) 43.Bd2 Qf3# or
b) 43.Bb2 f3+ 44.Kd2 Qe2+ 45.Kc1 (or Kc3) ..Qc2#; therefore
c) 43.Kf4 Qxc1+ 44.Qe3 Qh1 and either
c1) 45.Kg5 (if Qd4 Qf3+ Kg5 Qf5+ Kh6 Qg6#) Qxd5+
and the C pawn queens, or..
c2) 45.f3 Qxf3+ 46.Qxf3 gxf3 47.Kxf3 c3 48.Ke3 c2 49.Kd2 Kg7 etc
|May-02-17|| ||Helios727: What does Black do after 42. Ke3 Qd1 43. Kf4 Qf3+ 44. Kg5 Qf5+ 45. Kh4 ?|
|May-02-17|| ||keypusher: <Helios727: What does Black do after 42. Ke3 Qd1 43. Kf4>|
43....<Qxc1+> as per PawnSac's note <c.>
Of course after 44.Qe3 instead of 44....Qh1 Black can just trade queens; he's a piece ahead.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·