|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-04-11 | | M.D. Wilson: Spassky also said that Karpov would have won the rematch in 1978. |
|
| Jan-04-11 | | diceman: If one is interested in opinions,
lets see what Botvinnik said about the Larsen match: "It is hard to say how their match will end, but it is clear that such an easy victory as in Vancouver (against Taimanov) will not be given to Fischer. I think Larsen has unpleasant surprises in store for him, all the more since having dealt with Taimanov thus (a 6-0 victory), Fischer will want to do just the same to Larsen and this is impossible." -- Mikhail Botvinnik Funny thing, I bet Botvinnik thought
he had a "winning" prediction, after
all it had never been done before.
(well, except for Fischer in the previous match)
Ahhhh opinons, 100% accurate.
(I wonder how many predicted Fischer would go 6-0, 6-0?
(heh, heh) My guess would be none.
Amazing how many unplayed games Fischer has lost. |
|
Jan-04-11
 | | HeMateMe: Perhaps a little jealousy on the part of Botvinnik? |
|
| Jan-21-11 | | M.D. Wilson: No one gave Alekhine a chance in 1927 either, and look what happened there. |
|
Jan-22-12
 | | Sneaky: I'm sure Alekhine-Euwe World Championship Match (1935) also made the chessbookies go wild. |
|
| Aug-22-12 | | Everett: <tamar: Karpov turned into a large spider in these type positions, laying elaborate traps.> Nicely said. I like it.
Another indication of Karpov's style was shown with his 30.Bxg5. Even if the piece sac was unsound, Karpov feels his position is strong enough to deal with the pseudo-active N on d4. That is what made Karpov so great. He offered his opponents only semblances of activity and the initiative. |
|
Aug-22-12
 | | harrylime: Karpov had his limitations.Kasparov exploited these but so would've Fischer.. |
|
Aug-22-12
| | harrylime: And for the 1000th time, the Spassky Karpov played in the 70's was NOT the same 60's model. |
|
| Mar-03-15 | | falso contacto: then I started playing 1.d4. |
|
Mar-03-15
 | | offramp: <Sneaky: I'm sure Alekhine-Euwe World Championship Match (1935) also made the chessbookies go wild.> In 1935 in England the bookmakers spoke about little else. |
|
| Apr-08-16 | | Everett: <Aug-22-12 harrylime: And for the 1000th time, the Spassky Karpov played in the 70's was NOT the same 60's model.> That's right, both Fischer and Karpov did not play the 64-69 Spassky. Keres, Geller, Tal, Korchnoi and Larsen did, and each were beaten. Most of Spassky's match victories weren't even close, '68 in particular. |
|
| Apr-09-16 | | ewan14: Boris Spassky's best years were 1961 ( 2nd 1961 ussr champiobship ) to 1969 He had to qualify for the 1963 championship
and then after it win the ridiculous tournament of
Six |
|
| Apr-09-16 | | Howard: It was seven players, not six (don't know why it was an odd number, though). Spassky finished clear first with a +2 score, despite the fact that he started out with -2 after four rounds! |
|
| Apr-09-16 | | Atking: 25...f6 Black should hold this position |
|
| Apr-10-16 | | Everett: <ewan> Spassky didn't need to win it, just top 3. USSR Zonal (1964) But yes, it was a ridiculous field, almost as tough as the US championship, haha. |
|
| Apr-10-16 | | Howard: True---the top three players advanced, so taking first place wasn't really essential... ...but you gotta hand it to Spassky! He could have hardly gotten off to a worse start in the first four rounds, but he nevertheless finished clear first. Normally though, a final score of +2 would not have sufficed for clear first in a 12-game event, but that was the case here. |
|
| Apr-10-16 | | ewan14: Kholmov was robbed of his rightful interzonal place because of Smyslov per Korchnoi |
|
| Apr-18-16 | | Everett: <...but you gotta hand it to Spassky! He could have hardly gotten off to a worse start in the first four rounds, but he nevertheless finished clear first.> No, clear first did not matter to the others who made <top 3>. So I don't <hand it to Spassky>. It didn't matter. |
|
| Apr-27-16 | | Howard: Maybe first place in that event didn't count much more than third....but I still say Spassky deserved tremendous credit for making such a tremendous comeback. I will concede one point though....Spassky's final score of 7/12 would normally have not been good enough for clear first. But this exceptionally strong event was one where no one was really able to rack up a substantial plus-score, but Spassky's point-total just happened to be better than everyone else's, so he somewhat "accidentally" ended up in clear first. |
|
| Sep-20-17 | | edubueno: Esta partida de BS es menos entendible que la número 2. |
|
Jan-05-19
 | | gezafan: So what is black's compensation after 30.exf5? When black plays an eventual ...e4 Ra3 seems to guard against all threats. Ra3 protects the knight and removes the rook from the a1 h8 diagonal. Was Spassky just trying to mix it up? |
|
| Oct-22-20 | | lentil: Amusing final position. B has no defense against 56 Re4+ Kxf5 then a discovered check to win either the N or B. |
|
| Aug-03-23 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: Why did Spassky play
33...Kg7 ? |
|
Aug-03-23
 | | moronovich: 33- Kg8 will be met by Rxd6 followed by Rxg6+ if - Bxg5 |
|
| Apr-05-24 | | VictorVonDoom: White is already a little better on move 7. ...Bg4. It is an inaccuracy. cxd5 would have been better. But the advantage is lost after d5 closing the position. h3 attacking the bishop would have been better. On move 16. The game is equal, but then black makes another inaccuracy e5. Instead if Qa5 was played, attacking the knight on c3, Rac1 protecting it Bxc3 Rxc3 exd5 exd5 and the game becomes equal. With e5, white can play a5, preventing the queen from attacking the queenside. Another inaccuracy was Bh6 allowing g5 and the bishop has to move back and white can continue the attack while black pieces are trapped by their own pawns. After hxg5 hxg5, white is winning. White's rooks can attack the king and black's rooks are stuck at the back. And after the 35th move white is an exchange up and went on to easily win the game. In this game, I see no mistakes or blunders, just a string of inaccuracies by Spassky, allowing Karpov to win |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
