|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-24-15 | | disasterion: <Howard>: The short answer seems to be, no. I left Stockfish to ponder the position after 41. Rfc2 (the sealed move), and it finds nothing better for white. 41...g5 is given as +0.23 in white's favour at depth 34. On a cursory look through the game from 22. Bxf8 onwards, there's never more than half a pawn advantage to white, and no clear winning line that Spassky missed. |
|
| Mar-24-15 | | morfishine: This is all exciting stuff, but Spassky "blew" his preparation in preparing nothing for Fischer's Alekhine defense, not once, but twice ***** |
|
| Mar-25-15 | | RookFile: Fischer had a pawn for the exchange. Then, ask yourself just how scared you are of the isolated e4 pawn. A draw is a perfectly expected outcome. |
|
| Jun-03-17 | | nummerzwei: In his comments, Gligoric stresses the importance of manoeuvring the knight to c6, where it blocks White's rooks from invading via the c-file. The only way to break through this barrier is to play b4-b5 (e.g. 42.Rb2), but this leads to an exchange of the queenside pawns, and thus a draw. |
|
| Jun-29-18 | | Petrosianic: <Howard>: <Did Spassky have any probable win in this game? He was, after all, the exchange up and he definitely blundered into a three-fold repetition.> In addition to having a pawn for the exchange, Black had the advantages of a) a solid position with no penetration points for the White Rooks, b) White's weak e4 pawn, and c) Black's very active Rook. All that combined should provide full compensation. To be sure, Spassky could have kept playing, but it's hard to see any promising winning attempts. What winning plan might he try? |
|
| Jun-29-18 | | Howard: You're probably right. But I distinctly recall Lombardy's saying that even though Spassky might not have had a forced win, he certainly could have "made Bobby suffer for a long time". Spassky, incidentally, was reported to have appeared startled when Fischer "gleefully went to the referee" to claim a draw. In other words, the three-fold was apparently an error on his part. |
|
| Jul-06-18 | | Hobobill30: According to marin (pirc master) timman found 21...Rfc8!N ....because on move 24 Qf4!N "signifagent improvement over the game because after qxf4, 25,rxf4-..g5!? because trying to continue in fashion to the game results in 25...knight d7 ,26 rf2-rc1+ 27Kh2-KNe5- now white has 28 f6! partly spoiling blacks stability" back to ..g5 26 rff3-rc5 27rc3-re5 28 rc7-rxe4 29 rxb7- a5 30ra7-re5 31rc3 with small + saying whites queenside+ activity offers some prospect." although Marin shows a line after timmans 21 thats fine for black. this qoute is from marins pirc defence GM repertoire book |
|
| May-20-19 | | Howard: Personally, I think it's misleading for the website to state that this game is analyzed by Stockfish. If you click on the link, you'll see that it's hardly analyzed at all !!! |
|
May-20-19
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
That film that Mark relates to (see above) is 'Harry Brown' here is a piece about the chess in the film and a clip of the chess scene mentioning game 7 and the Pirc. http://streathambrixtonchess.blogsp... *** |
|
May-20-19
 | | harrylime: Robert Fischer in CRUISE mode here. lol |
|
May-20-19
| | Sally Simpson: ***
It is possible the script changed the 'game 17' to game 7 for the flow of the conversation, he says it is match 7 - not game 7. and 'Fischer won' could have meant Fischer won as in winning the title. That is a lot of 'coulds' maybe it was just a cock up like that villain who was only meant to blow the bloody doors off. *** |
|
May-20-19
| | harrylime: <Sally Simpson: ***
It is possible the script changed the 'game 17' to game 7 for the flow of the conversation, he says it is match 7 - not game 7. and 'Fischer won' could have meant Fischer won as in winning the title.That is a lot of 'coulds' maybe it was just a cock up like that villain who was only meant to blow the bloody doors off. ***>
whatever .
In THIS game Bobby WAS on AUTOPILOT.
lol lol lol |
|
May-20-19
| | harrylime: Robert Fischer is the GREATEST Chess player of ALL TIME. When Bobby goes into CRUISE CONTROL. ... er .... he goes into CRUISE CONTROL . lol |
|
| May-20-19 | | RookFile: <"I was the strongest from 1964 to 1970, but in 1971 Fischer was already stronger." - Boris Spassky> Humorous. He doesn't let a match loss against Petrosian get in the way. |
|
May-20-19
| | harrylime: <RookFile: <"I was the strongest from 1964 to 1970, but in 1971 Fischer was already stronger." - Boris Spassky>
Humorous. He doesn't let a match loss against Petrosian get in the way.> Spassky was as cool a chess champion as you'll get. It took a Fischer to bring him down.
History does him no justice. And the Soviets and Ruskies like to re write history. |
|
| Dec-18-21 | | PeterPringle: One of the books on this match expressed disbelief that Fischer played, …. 18. Bxc3. The writer commented, “Can such things really be? Bobby really must be out to prove he can get away with anything.” |
|
| Jun-20-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: The times for this game from a website called crackteam.org: <<Game 17, August 22th, 1972 Spassky Fischer
White Black
(ar) (0:05)
1. e4 (0:00) d6 (0:05)
2. d4 (0:02) g6 (0:05)
3. Nc3 (0:06) Nf6 (0:09)
4. f4 (0:07) Bg7 (0:09)
5. Nf3 (0:07) c5 (0:24)
6. dxc5 (0:12) Qa5 (0:24)
7. Bd3 (0:13) Qxc5 (0:25)
8. Qe2 (0:13) 0-0 (0:30)
9. Be3 (0:14) Qa5 (0:32)
10. 0-0 (0:16) Bg4 (0:34)
11. Rad1 (0:50) Nc6 (0:35)
12. Bc4 (0:56) Nh5 (0:53)
13. Bb3 (1:12) Bxc3 (0:54)
14. bxc3 (1:12) Qxc3 (0:54)
15. f5 (1:17) Nf6 (1:07)
16. h3 (1:39) Bxf3 (1:17)
17. Qxf3 (1:39) Na5 (1:21)
18. Rd3 (1:42) Qc7 (1:31)
19. Bh6 (1:48) Nxb3 (1:32)
20. cxb3 (1:48) Qc5+ (1:38)
21. Kh1 (1:49) Qe5 (1:38)
22. Bxf8 (1:52) Rxf8 (1:38)
23. Re3 (2:01) Rc8 (1:39)
24. fxg6 (2:03) hxg6 (1:39)
25. Qf4 (2:04) Qxf4 (1:49)
26. Rxf4 (2:04) Nd7 (1:50)
27. Rf2 (2:04) Ne5 (1:54)
28. Kh2 (2:04) Rc1 (1:57)
29. Ree2 (2:04) Nc6 (1:58)
30. Rc2 (2:05) Re1 (2:00)
31. Rfe2 (2:06) Ra1 (2:01)
32. Kg3 (2:09) Kg7 (2:01)
33. Rcd2 (2:12) Rf1 (2:05)
34. Rf2 (2:14) Re1 (2:06)
35. Rfe2 (2:15) Rf1 (2:06)
36. Re3 (2:15) a6 (2:11)
37. Rc3 (2:18) Re1 (2:13)
38. Rc4 (2:18) Rf1 (2:16)
39. Rdc2 (2:19) Ra1 (2:17)
40. Rf2 (2:23) Re1 (2:20)
41. Rfc2(s) (2:44)
(Both players arrived a minute before the resumption of the game.)
41. ... g5 (2:21)
42. Rc1 (2:49) Re2 (2:23)
43. R1c2 (2:49) Re1 (2:23)
44. Rc1 (2:59) Re2 (2:24)
45. R1c2 (2:59) Re1 (2:24)
½-½
(ar) indicates the player’s arrival.
(s) indicates a sealed move.
Spassky spent 15 minutes on the position after Fischer’s 41st move. That is, 5 minutes making his 42nd move, and 10 more minutes making his 44th when the same position occurred again. Perhaps he was surprised at Fischer’s 41st move.> > |
|
Jul-15-24
 | | Chessmaletaja: Spassky's manoeuvre 12 ♗d3-c4; 13 ♗c4-b3 is pretty slow. At the moment when Fischer grabbed the pawn with 13...♗xc3 14 bxc3 ♕xc3, Fischer's knight on c6 prevented White's move ♗d4. Nevertheless, Fischer escaped only by not falling into several traps and making very precise moves. For example, after 15 f5 Fischer played 15...♘f6!. Note that the very same knight on f6 later jumps to the central square e5 through d7. Giving up the bishop g7 for a pawn or exchange is often highly dangerous. |
|
Jul-15-24
| | Chessmaletaja: <Some Notes on the Opening> I do not know about these openings. Excuse me if I am blundering something. They say that, with black pieces, Fischer avoided his pet opening, King's Indian Defence, during the match with Spassky. I do not understand.
After <1 e4 d6 2 d4 g6>, it was Spassky who avoided the King's Indian playing <3 ♘c3>. After 3 c4 ♘f6 4 ♘c3 ♗g7 it is King's Indian. After <7...♕xc5> the position on the board resembles the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian Defence. Had Fischer played the Dragon Variation before? After <9 ♗e3>, Fischer played <9...♕a5>. He did not want the poisoned pawn b2. I assume that he avoided it because, differently from the Najdorf Variation in the Sicilian Defence, Black has not yet played a6. After 9...♕b4 10 0-0 ♕xb2 White has the move 11 ♘b5! with a better position. If Spassky needed to play for a win, after <9...♕a5>, the sharp move (perhaps a novelty) 10 0-0-0 was playable with equal chances. In the game, <10 0-0 ♗g4!> followed. Spassky played <11 ♖ad1>. However, the move 11 ♕e1 seems to be strong. See the game Kavalek - Torre 1976. Kavalek vs E Torre, 1976 |
|
Jul-16-24
 | | keypusher: < Chessmaletaja: <Some Notes on the Opening>
I do not know about these openings. Excuse me if I am blundering something. They say that, with black pieces, Fischer avoided his pet opening, King's Indian Defence, during the match with Spassky. I do not understand.
After <1 e4 d6 2 d4 g6>, it was Spassky who avoided the King's Indian playing <3 ♘c3>. After 3 c4 ♘f6 4 ♘c3 ♗g7 it is King's Indian.> Good point, though this was late in the match (17 of 21; he played Alekhine's and Sicilian in his remaining outings with Black). <After <7...♕xc5> the position on the board resembles the Dragon Variation of the Sicilian Defence. Had Fischer played the Dragon Variation before?> As far as I know, no. He was a famous Dragon-slayer with White with games like Fischer vs B Larsen, 1958 |
|
Jul-16-24
 | | perfidious: <Chessmaletaja....They say that, with black pieces, Fischer avoided his pet opening, King's Indian Defence, during the match with Spassky....> As I have posted elsewhere, while Fischer may have made statements against 'the Russians', he had immense respect for their analytical capabilities and was, as Levy wrote long ago, well aware of the need to stay one step ahead of them. Fischer had experienced trouble when facing the Saemisch vs the KID in the hands of even relatively weak players, as in E Jimenez Zerquera vs Fischer, 1965, and there was little doubt Spassky would have gone in for that line. We all know that Fischer had twice lost to Spassky to the Gruenfeld, another bugbear. Even as the match went, Fischer's favourite Sozin vs the Sicilian was fortunate to grovel a draw in the fourth game and was never seen again. By no means was Alekhine's a rara avis in his praxis, but after the hiding Fischer took in game 11, it was back to the drawing board for the Poisoned Pawn. Yet another surprise awaited in the final game, with Fischer playing a Sicilian Kan. |
|
Jul-17-24
| | Chessmaletaja: So, perhaps Fischer agreed to play King's Indian if he could avoid the Saemisch. However, in the present game, if Spassky plays 3 c4, the Saemisch is not excluded because White has not yet played f4. |
|
| Jul-17-24 | | Muttley101: Did Fischer ever play the dragon before this Pirc game? Depends what you mean by "dragon". Fischer player the side of accelerated dragon, Maroczy binds, in games- black against Petrosian in the 4th game of the USSR vs RoW 1970 match, and also against Larsen in one of their candidate 1/2 final matches, but these were transpositions from the English. So, kinda yes and no. "No" as in- not as a Sicilian to 1 e4, but yes, by transposition from the English, and on the black side of a Maroczy bind. Not going into a KID and playing the Samisch perhaps shows Spassky was off regarding his decisions at times in the match, but one could argue that perhaps he thought Fischer would be less familiar or comfortable playing a Pirc defence. Horses for courses. |
|
| Sep-23-24 | | DaeWang: 29. ... Nc6: "No man shall pass" |
|
| Jan-11-25 | | ColdSong: Stockfish is lazy here somewhat.The only Pirc Fischer ever played with black if I'm not mistaken.Fischer liked to play g6 in the sicilian when it was possible,but not a true dragon ( without c4). |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
