|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-19-09 | | M.D. Wilson: I disagree. Where's your reasoning? Still, you can play bad against both but still play better against one or the other. |
 |
| May-25-09 | | Brown: Spassky had one-move blunders and forgotten TNs against Fischer. Against Karpov, he was a little fuzzy (like the 10..a5 in this game) but did not crack vs. Karpov like he did in the early-mid part of the match against Fischer. |
|
| Jul-14-09 | | ToTheDeath: A great example of the Shifting Attack- White piles up threats on the f file to force concessions (...f6 and ...Bd8), then shifts to the now weakened d file to invade- and if Black tries to defend the d file the blow then comes on the f file! 32...Rxd8 33.Nxe5! 24.Nb1! is also a great example of Makogonov's Rule- All other things being equal in a position it is necessary to improve the position of your worst placed piece. Fantastic game. |
|
| Aug-06-09 | | A Karpov Fan: One of the best games of all time, from one of the greatest matches. |
|
May-04-10
 | | GrahamClayton: <ToTheDeath>24.Nb1! is also a great example of Makogonov's Rule- All other things being equal in a position it is necessary to improve the position of your worst placed piece. <ToTheDeath>,
The advantage of 24. b1 over 24.e2 is seen on move 27 - White can avoid exchanges by playing 27. e2, as the e2 square is free. |
|
Aug-15-10
 | | Ulhumbrus: Karpov could have gained some inspiration for the match games which he played in 1974 from the moves 13 Rf2 and 17 Qg1 played in the game Fischer vs F Olafsson, 1961 |
|
| Jan-09-11 | | Salaskan: One of Karpov's finest games early in his career, already demonstrating his boa constrictor style; even in a more or less open position he quietly improves his piece placement with every move, trading off the bishop pair to gain control over useful squares and leaves poor Spassky completely tangled up in the end. |
|
Jan-09-11
 | | Fusilli: Nicely put, <Salaskan>. That's exactly what happened here. |
|
| Jan-10-11 | | Petrosianic: <Most commentators agree that Spassky played better against Karpov than he did against Fischer in 1972.> It's hard not to reach that conclusion if you've played over both matches. But really, what people mean when they say that is that Spassky's play in 1974 was free of the howling blunders that plagued him in 1972. Certainly he played better against Karpov than he did in the first 10 games against Fischer. Significantly better, in fact. But if you can wipe out the memory of those early games, and ask yourself this: Did Spassky play better in the 11 games against Karpov, or in the LAST 11 games against Fischer, then the answer is not at all clear. |
|
Jan-10-11
 | | kellmano: <Backward Development: 24.Nb1!!> Thought you'd like that |
|
Apr-02-11
 | | wordfunph: game's quote..
"His play is dry, but very good." GM Vlastimil Hort (on Anatoly Karpov) Source: The Art of Chess Analysis by Jan Timman |
|
| Apr-02-11 | | Eduardo Leon: 10...a5 is completely wrong! To give up the b5 square and lock the queenside (where black's attack normally develops) for nothing! Did Spassky really expect Karpov not to play 11.a4? |
|
| May-30-11 | | Llawdogg: I agree. 24 Nb1! was a very good move.
This prepares c3 to chase away Spassky's annoying knight, which was his best placed piece. |
|
| Feb-26-12 | | wuvmuffin72: ... a5 is a normally perfect Sicilian move that outposts a nice Knight on b4. Black plans involving occupation of b4 is also perfect demonstrated in the Smyslov or Dutch Variation of the Slav Defense as well. Only difference is that Black's occupation of b4 in the Scheveningen or Boleslwsky Hole allows Black to create almost immediate central counterplay. If a4 then Black can occupy b4 with plans of ... e5 with the b4 Knight assisting in the fight for d5, otherwise Black plays ... a3 harassing the White b Knight if White doesn't play a4. |
|
| May-13-12 | | Everett: <24.Nb1! is also a great example of Makogonov's Rule- All other things being equal in a position it is necessary to improve the position of your worst placed piece.> ?? This is news to me. Always thought the crux of this idea was originally Tarrasch, who was always keen on swapping underperforming pieces and making active and effective the remaining army. |
|
| May-23-12 | | King Death: This is a game that I remember very well, who could forget the strange looking retreat 24.Nb1 that's the beginning of the end for Black? After Karpov plays c3 Black's best piece gets pushed to the side of the board and Karpov improves his position with every move. |
|
| May-23-12 | | RookFile: Of course, if Spassky doesn't make 4 mistakes in this game, it might have been a little tougher. |
|
| May-23-12 | | Everett: <RookFile: Of course, if Spassky doesn't make 4 mistakes in this game, it might have been a little tougher.> So what?
Not as bad as Spassky's outright blunders capping poor play vs Fischer in the first half of their '72 match. And game 6, considered a gem in that match, Spassky plays a half-dozen inferior moves. Though comps pick out mistakes quickly, sometimes it takes a human genius to make each mistake costly. Karpov does that here, just as all the best do. |
|
| May-24-12 | | King Death: < Everett: Not as bad as Spassky's outright blunders capping poor play vs Fischer in the first half of their '72 match. And game 6, considered a gem in that match, Spassky plays a half-dozen inferior moves...> What a way to talk about <RookFile's> boy Fischer especially because you're right. Game 5 was a good example with the terrible strategical mistake in the early middle game and the one mover to end the game. <...Though comps pick out mistakes quickly, sometimes it takes a human genius to make each mistake costly...> For sure and Karpov had no mercy when it came to taking advantage of mistakes. There was nothing spectacular about his play but he was one tough player. |
|
| May-24-12 | | Anderssen99: After the beautiful moves 19.Bg4! and 24.Nb1!! Karpov planned a lovely termination, i.e. 35...,Rxd8. 36.Be7,Re8. 37.Qxf6+,Kh6 (...Kh7. 38.Qf7+,Kh6. 39.Bg5 Mate). 38.Nh4,Rg8. 39.Nxg6!! (39.Nf5+ also mates),Rxg8. 40.Qh8 mate. Karpov said that this is one of his ten best games. |
|
| May-24-12 | | RookFile: <Though comps pick out mistakes quickly, sometimes it takes a human genius to make each mistake costly. Karpov does that here, just as all the best do.> I have no doubt that if Petrosian was playing white, the same thing happens, move for move. |
|
May-24-12
 | | keypusher: <RookFile: Of course, if Spassky doesn't make 4 mistakes in this game, it might have been a little tougher.> This was a stupid comment back when you made it in 2007. There was no reason to make it again. Unless you want to remind people that you once went through Mednis' book of the match, counted up the question marks, and recorded the number on the game page for each of Spassky's losses. You know, lest anyone realize that Spassky played better against Karpov than against Fischer and still got crushed. <RookFile: <Though comps pick out mistakes quickly, sometimes it takes a human genius to make each mistake costly. Karpov does that here, just as all the best do.>I have no doubt that if Petrosian was playing white, the same thing happens, move for move.> I try to leave you off ignore, but you're just too dumb. |
|
| May-24-12 | | Petrosianic: <I try to leave you off ignore, but you're just too dumb.> That's a mistake, you know. If your time is more valuable than his, then you lose in the trade-off. But hey, if you're still reading Rookfile, a few years back, he was working on a Master Database of excuses for all known Fischer defeats. Could you ask, and then pass on the answer, what the excuse is for Najdorf-Fischer, 1966? I knew this at one point, but have forgotten it. |
|
| May-24-12 | | Everett: <I have no doubt that if Petrosian was playing white, the same thing happens, move for move.> Is this some kind of failed diss? "Oh yeah, any ol' player who was able to hold the WC for 6 years could have played these exact moves." |
|
| May-28-12 | | RookFile: <keypusher: This was a stupid comment back when you made it in 2007. > No it wasn't. Analyze it with a computer, and you'll see it point out one mistake after another. It annihilates Kasparov's comment that Spassky somehow played better chess than usual but lost anyway. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
and 
buttons, but it's much easier to simply use the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard.
