< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jan-19-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Fischer inches towards the title. What would he have done if draws didn't count?|
|Jan-31-09|| ||elAurens: In this game, Spassky thought for five minutes after seeing Fischer's first move in the adjournment session, which was move 41. He thought another ten minutes for move 44 before completing the repetition. It looks like he intended to take the draw at that point. For the rest of the times, see http://www.crackteam.org/2008/11/20...|
|Feb-20-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Spassky really pilled on the pressure during this stage of the match, but Fischer managed to avoid getting seriously hurt, all the while he inched his way closer to the title.|
|May-04-09|| ||WhiteRook48: how very odd|
|Jul-29-09|| ||WhiteRook48: from games 11 to 21 in the championship match Spassky started playing 1 e4
have you noticed?|
|Oct-29-09|| ||Eyal: <from games 11 to 21 in the championship match Spassky started playing 1 e4 have you noticed?>|
Not so surprising, when you consider how little he achieved with 1.d4:
Game 1 (Nimzo-Indian) - Fischer equalizes easily (he lost the game, but that was because of the incredible 29...Bxh2 blunder from a dead even position).
Games 3 (Benoni) & 5 (Nimzo-Indian, different system than game 1) - Fischer gets an advantage out of the opening and wins.
Game 9 (Semi-Tarrasch) - Fischer equalizes easily, a draw in less than 30 moves.
In game 7 Spassky already played 1.e4 and almost lost in the Sicilian "Poisoned Pawn" line, but there he - or his team - had in mind a concrete improvement, and when he got another chance of playing it in game 11 he won - the only game in the match where Spassky managed to systematically outplay Fischer. So it makes sense that he decided to stick with 1.e4 for the rest of the match (though since, from that point on, Fischer stopped repeating lines but kept throwing at him something different every game, he could never be sure about what opening to expect). The results were mixed - he lost games 13 & 21 (in both of which the opening didn't go so well for him), but managed to put Fischer under considerable pressure in games 15, 17 & 19. Any other player in the world than Fischer, at that time, would almost certainly have lost to Spassky at least one of the middlegame positions that arose from the openings of these games.
|Oct-29-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: When you're behind, and only a win can help you, the best move is 1. e4. You can pretty much achieve a double edged game in any opening.|
|Oct-30-09|| ||Petrosianic: <In game 7 Spassky already played 1.e4 and almost lost in the Sicilian "Poisoned Pawn" line, but there he - or his team - had in mind a concrete improvement,>|
So you say, and you may be right, but it's only fair to note that Spassky himself claimed he came up with Nb1 at the board. Gligoric said of this that "nobody believes him", but I think I do, mainly because the move really isn't that great, and only worked because Fischer had an off day.
|Oct-30-09|| ||Eyal: <So you say, and you may be right, but it's only fair to note that Spassky himself claimed he came up with Nb1 at the board. Gligoric said of this that "nobody believes him", but I think I do, mainly because the move really isn't that great, and only worked because Fischer had an off day.>|
Yeah, I forgot about that part in Gligoric's book (also that Spassky spent 30 minutes on Nb1) - I was going by "Russians vs. Fischer", where Bondarevsky is quoted as attributing the move to team home analysis. Btw, even if the move doesn't objectively deserve the "!!" it gets in some commentaries, I still think it was a very good practical idea, because it posed Fischer some serious problems to solve at the board, in a line where he usually outprepared his opponents and hardly faced any problems. At any rate, if Spassky himself came up with the move at the board it actually fits even better with the more general point I was trying to make about his decision to stick with 1.e4 from that game on - in the sense that he might have been encouraged by the feeling that he managed at last to outplay Fischer "on his own".
|Oct-30-09|| ||Petrosianic: It's hard to know who to believe. Is Bondarevsky telling the truth, or trying to brag about their home analysis? How long did Spassky take over the move? 30 minutes or something? If it was cooked up at home, he might not have been completely sold on it.|
Either way, I can see why Spassky played it. 3 points down, he needed to try the sharpest line he could find, and this was the sharpest one in Fischer's repertoire.
|Oct-30-09|| ||Marmot PFL: No way did Spassky just find that at the board. Fischer had already played the poisoned pawn so obviously Spassky's team would be working on it. They even avoided it in game 9.|
|Oct-30-09|| ||Petrosianic: I don't know, I could believe either story. In Game 9, Spassky was only 2 points down, coming off a howling blunder, and may have wanted an easy draw to recover his equilibrium. In Game 11 he was 3 points down and REALLY needing a win. So I could see him playing the Poisoned Pawn even without an improvement in mind.|
Maybe they suggested it to him beforehand (Hey, maybe Nb1 is worth a try), but he spent a long time at the board convincing himself it was playable. Some of the players who praised it the most didn't play it themselves when they had the chance a year or so later, so I don't know if I'd call it an "improvement". It certainly didn't deserve the shower of exclamation points annotators heaped on it at the time.
|Oct-30-09|| ||Zonszein: but why would Spassky lie about it?
he could have played it a move earlier I think
|Oct-30-09|| ||Petrosianic: Gligoric's implication was that Spassky was lying (though I don't think he'd have used that strong a word) because the move was just too good to have come up with at the board. I don't buy that argument, because it's really NOT that objectively good. Considering how long he took to play it (if I'm remembering right), I think that the <decision to play the move> was probably made at the board, though maybe Bondarevsky is also right in saying that the move had been at least discussed beforehand.|
|Oct-30-09|| ||Eyal: As for the time that Spassky spent on the move, it's pretty certain that it was 30 minutes - besides Gligoric mentioning it, the clock times of the match are documented (http://www.crackteam.org/2008/12/16...). But as was already mentioned, this fact in itself isn't conclusive one way or the other, especially since we know of cases during the match where Spassky reconsidered at length home analysis over the board - especially during game 4, where he ended by choosing 21...h5 over the home prep ...Rd8, something which caused a lot of bitterness between him and Geller.|
|Oct-30-09|| ||talisman: i think spassky found Nb1 at the board because of his previous move, before Nb1. it's a waiting move, and it certainly doesn't set up Nb1.|
|Oct-28-11|| ||newshutz: re the first post by <drunken knight>|
Why not 7.cxd6? Well, I have had this played against me, and the subsequent 8.dxe7, too. So, I have worked out lines against them.
9.bxc3 Qxc3+ (...Bxc3 10.Bd2)
10.Kf2! Nc6 (11.Qd8# threatened)
11.Rb1 and black is slightly better. White has freer development, but worse pawn structure; White has a more exposed King, but Black must waste time capturing the pawn on e7 with a piece to castle;
Other lines are worse for white.
|Oct-28-11|| ||talisman: looks like my 09 comment was meant for a different game...regarding this game how many of us would play bobby's 12th move?|
|Oct-28-11|| ||AnalyzeThis: Yes, with the idea of giving up the g7 bishop for that knight on c3 - scandalous. There are GM games where that bishop is hitting a rook on a1, and the GM's with white just leave it there - that is the value of that g7 bishop.|
Fischer knew the rules, and he knew when he could break them.
|Oct-30-11|| ||talisman: <AnalyzeThis> Exactly.|
|Jul-30-12|| ||Everett: Both Spassky and Petrosian either forgot or ignored home analysis and prep during Fischer's run. It is very strange, these free thinkers going their own way... |
At this point in the match, Spassky's brain was still a sieve. I wouldn't be surprised if he did review it with Bondarevsky, but completely forgot about it when he was at the board.
|Jul-30-12|| ||perfidious: <drukenknight: ....Okay can one of you Pirc experts tell me why Spassky doesn't take 7 cxd6?....>
Long ago, I played this line numerous times as Black and never had the pleasure of playing 7.cxd6 Nxe4, which is winning.|
<....My NY Times book on the match says this is a well known opening but my old MCO book doesnt have it....>
The only MCO I've ever owned is the eleventh edition and I've no idea what it has to say as it's buried somewhere.
Another kibitzer mentioned 7.Qd3, which was played against me in Burnham-A Shaw, 2nd Monadnock Marathon 1979. There followed 7....Nxe4 8.Qxe4 Bxc3+ and my tired brain doesn't remember the rest of the game, except that my opponent somehow grovelled a draw from this mess.
|Jul-30-12|| ||perfidious: As to <Eyal>'s kibitz on 29.10.09, it's true that Spassky exerted himself to the utmost in the latter phase of the match (in fact with both colours), but Fischer withstood the test.|
That is the mark of a champion-give as good as you get.
|Jul-31-12|| ||Everett: <perfidious> That's right. Fischer did not break, whereas Spassky crumbled in the first half of the match.|
|Oct-31-12|| ||The Rocket: <Both Spassky and Petrosian either forgot or ignored home analysis and prep during Fischer's run.>|
I know in Spasskys case that it's well known that he forgot aloth of the prep Geller was providing.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·