| Jun-29-03 | | Tigran Petrosian: WHoa! |
 |
| Jun-30-03 | | drukenknight: 41...Qxd5+ looks better. |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | Benjamin Lau: For some reason, Geller was always a silver bullet of world champions. |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | drukenknight: I think he was really strong. Except against Spassky who played him quite well. |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | Benjamin Lau: Spassky: 11 wins
Geller: 7 wins
36 draws
I could hardly call that being played with. :-) Perhaps it's all a big food chain. I mean, Geller beats Fischer, Fischer beats Spassky, and Spassky beats Geller. |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | drukenknight: draws are irrelevant to this. It's 11 to 7, approx. 3-2. Thats fairly significant. Dont believe it? why dont you look up some other rivalries and see where they come out? |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | Ghengis Pawn II: Pardon my stupidity, I am on lunch break and dont have alot of time... Move 41 is a check which can capture the bishop and unleash a torrent of damage, yet...white wins? |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | uglybird: 42.Kf8 threatens Nf7+, ...h6 (only move), 43.Qf7 (threatens Qg8#) Qxf7 44.Nxf7+ wins. |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | drukenknight: yeah I think if he did 41...Qxd5+ he can get the Q to g8 and prevent the bank rank mate. |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | tayer: 41...Qxd5+ ? 42. cxd5 |
|
| Jun-30-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <drunken knight> I rechecked and it was actually 31 draws, sorry. But 31 draws is still very significant. I fail to see why draws are "irrelevant." Just because a draw is a victory for neither side doesn't mean they should be discarded, especially when they outnumber the wins by so much. To ignore the draws is erroneous because a high number of draws indicates near equality (with no offense towards Spassky of course). And to discard the draws completely is simply incorrect mathematically. Let us set up a slightly extreme situation to prove the point. Assume that Kasparov and Kramnik (this is fake by the way) draw 50 times, Kasparov wins 4 times, and Kramnik wins twice. Thus, this is 2-1 and thus quite in favor of Kasparov. But if you look at the big picture, you realize the mistake. Kasparov is only a little bit better, not THAT much better. Thus, you must be careful whenever you assume the # of draws is worthless information. It is not. |
|
| Jul-01-03 | | drukenknight: yes mathematically you would think it all makes sense. But does it? What about in match play? Do draws matter?
have you looked at the spassky/geller 1968 match. Spassky won very convincingly it is hard to believe he could not have beaten Geller in a game if he had to do it. |
|
| Jul-01-03 | | Benjamin Lau: I'm not saying that Spassky can't beat Geller more than Geller can beat Spassky- I'm just saying that Geller was not that much weaker. |
|
| Jul-01-03 | | drukenknight: Nobody is that much weaker at that level. You can demonstrate that mathematically too. Look at how many moves it takes for the win. Does it take 20? 30? or 40? invariably the better players will take longer to get beaten. |
|
| Jul-01-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <Nobody is that much weaker at that level.> Then what are we arguing about? :-) I never believed that Geller could beat Spassky in a match, I was just trying to say that Geller was pretty close to Spassky and apparently you agree. <invariably the better players will take longer to get beaten.> With no reference to Geller v.s. Spassky specifically, you gotta know that isn't true. Closed games usually last longer even when one player is clearly better than the other. Games with d4 are more sturdy because the queen naturally protects the pawn and so the games drag out longer. |
|
| Jul-01-03 | | drukenknight: Geller is definitely really good. Have you looked at the Spassky/Geller 68 games. Ribeiro and I have started on two of them. They are fantastic trying to keep up with. |
|
| Mar-12-04 | | amdocs: Michail Tal was considered as chess player with the best ability for calculation but here Geler overcalculates him. |
|
Aug-28-08
 | | GrahamClayton: After 42.Kh8 Black runs out of checks, eg 42..h6 43.Be5 Be5 44. Nf7 Kh7 45. Ne5 |
|
Sep-03-08
| | GrahamClayton: Source: "Batsford Book of Chess Records", Yakov Damsky, Batsford, 2005 |
|
May-28-09
 | | David2009: A great King march! Could Geller have won earlier by playing 31 QxNe7: 
click for larger view
e.g. 31...Qg1+ 32 Kg3 Qf2+ 33 Kg4 Qxg2+ 34 Bg3; or 33...h5+ 34 Kg5 |
|
| Sep-03-09 | | Frankspinosa: If 31 QxNe7 black plays 31...Qg1 32 Kg3 Qf2+ 33 Kg4 Qxg2+ 34 Bg3 h5+ 35.kf4 (35.Kh4, Qe4+ 36.Qxe4, Bf6#)Be5 36.Ke3 Qxg3 |
|
| Jan-02-10 | | ToTheDeath: The king leads the charge! What a beaut! |
|
| Jul-18-12 | | Tal The Great: I don't think so Amdocs, 33...a6! would have forced white to check for the draw (his knight can't move because of Nd4+!) |
|
| Feb-08-13 | | olpa: David2009: no, 31.QxNe7 is actually a win for <black>. 31...Qg1+ 32.Kg3 Qf2+ 33.Kg4 Qxg2+ 34.Bg3
click for larger viewAnd now: 34...h5+ 35. Kh4 Qe4+!! 36. Qxe4 Bf6#. Mate. |
|
