|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Oct-09-07 |
| Plato: <Plato once again shows his lack of reading comprehension skills. Quoting from the profile, which he once again seems incapable of reading: <I am Rookfile. This is an account I use sometimes, it provides a different view of user posts than my default profile.>> <RookFile>, do you realize how embarrassing this is becoming for you? For the third or fourth time, YOU WROTE THAT "I am <RookFile>" NOTICE *AFTER* I CAUGHT YOU. Prior to that, you were trying to pass yourself off as someone else. Anyone who wants to confirm this need only read the previous pages on this thread or go to the Paul Morphy page. Now, which one of us is exhibiting lack of reading comprehension skills, <RF>? |
 |
| Oct-09-07 |
| Plato: And by the way, since you didn't quite catch the gist of my question, I was just asking how <BarneyRubble> is doing because you haven't made a post from that account for quite some time. |
|
| Oct-09-07 |
| Petrosianic: What's the big deal? It does seem pretty grossly dishonest to do this, even if you do announce it for those 2 or 3 people who might check the profiles of every user before talking to them. But if you know he's doing it, just killfile all three acounts and have done with it. I have. |
|
| Oct-09-07 |
| Plato: <I'll put him on ignore once again. Occasionally, I'll use my other accounts to read some of his more egregious posts.> For some people, that might defeat the purpose of putting me on ignore in the first place, eh, <RookFile>? But suit yourself :-P (I'm somehow guessing this will qualify as one of my "more egregious posts") |
|
| Oct-09-07 |
| RookFile: <chancho: <RookFile> Do you agree that Fischer got slapped upside the head in this game? :-) > Yes, and Fischer admitted as much, in My 60 Memorable Games. His not playing 23.... Qg3, trading queens, and instead going for 23..... Qg4, amounted to his getting his hand caught in the cookie jar. |
|
| Oct-09-07 |
| RookFile: You would have to say that moves like Spassky's 12. 0-0! were really courageous. At some point, Spassky realized that normal moves to hold onto material simply were not going to work, so he quite correctly let the material go and focused on rapid development. |
|
Oct-09-07
 |
| Peligroso Patzer: Here are some comments on this game, largely based on RJF's annotations in "My 60 Memorable Games": Spassky vs Fischer (Mar del Plata 1960) 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 <[The Muzio Gambit: 4.Bc4 g4 5.0–0 (5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.Kf1 Nc6!) 5...gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 - is drawish, according to Fischer]> 4...g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 <[5...h5 6.Bc4 Rh7 7.d4 d6 8.Nd3 f3 9.gxf3 Be7 10.Be3 Bxh4+ 11.Kd2 Bg5 12.f4 Bh6 13.Nc3]> 6.d4 <[6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bg7 (7...Bd6 is also adequate per Fischer); 6.Nxg4 Nxe4 7.d3 Ng3 8.Bxf4 Nxh1 9.Qe2+ (9.Bg5 Be7 10.Qe2 h5 11.Qe5 f6 12.Nxf6+ Kf7–+ (Fischer, citing Steinitz)) 9...Qe7 10.Nf6+ Kd8 11.Bxc7+ Kxc7 12.Nd5+ Kd8 13.Nxe7 Bxe7 - Fischer: "and Black should win, Morphy-Anderssen, Paris 1858]> 6...d6 7.Nd3 Nxe4 8.Bxf4 Bg7 9.Nc3? <[Better is 9.c3 Qe7 10.Qe2 Bf5]> 9...Nxc3 10.bxc3 c5 11.Be2 <[11.Qe2+ Be6 and if 12.d5? Bxc3+ –+]> 11...cxd4 12.0–0 Nc6 <[12...h5?! 13.Bg5 f6 14.Bc1 with Nf4 to follow]> 13.Bxg4 0–0 14.Bxc8 Rxc8 15.Qg4 f5 <[Better is 15...Kh8]> 16.Qg3 dxc3 17.Rae1 <[If 17.Bxd6 then 17...Rf6 18.Bf4 Rg6 with initiative]> 17...Kh8 <[Fischer: Also good is: 17...Qd7 18.Bxd6 Rfe8 19.Nc5 Qf7]> 18.Kh1? <[More accurate is 18.Bxd6 Rf6 (18...Rg8 19.Ne5!) 19.Be5 Nxe5 20.Nxe5]> 18...Rg8 <[18...d5 19.Nc5 creates problems for Black.]> 19.Bxd6 Bf8! <[19...Bd4 20.Qh2 Rg4 21.Be5+! Kg8 (21...Bxe5 22.Nxe5 Rxg2? 23.Nf7+  ) 22.Bg3]> 20.Be5+ Nxe5 21.Qxe5+ Rg7 22.Rxf5 <[22.Qxf5 Qxh4+ 23.Kg1 Qg4 forces a favorable exchange of Queens (if 24.Qf2 Bd6 produces a strong attack) - Fischer; also not 22.Rf4 Bd6–+; nor 22.Qf4 Rg4  ]> 22...Qxh4+ 23.Kg1 Qg4? <("Drifting. Not realizing the danger, I thought Black could whip up an attack along the g-file." - Fischer) [Correct is 23...Qg3! 24.Qxg3 (24.Qe2 Bd6–+) 24...Rxg3 threatening 25. ... Rxd3 followed by 26. ... c2.]> 24.Rf2 Be7 25.Re4 Qg5 <[Fischer: I started to feel uncomfortable, but little did I imagine that Black's game would collapse in four short moves! I should have taken a draw by repetition with: 25...Qd1+ 26.Re1 Qg4 27.Re4 Qd1+ , etc. And if 28.Kh2 Rc6 29.Qb8+ Rg8 30.Qe5+ Rg7 .]> 26.Qd4! <Fischer: This powerful centralization completely paralyzes Black.> 26...Rf8? <[26...Bf8 27.Qxa7 (27.Ne5 Bc5 28.Nf7+ Kg8 29.Nxg5 Bxd4 30.Rxd4 Rxg5) 27...Bd6=]> 27.Re5! <[Fischer: I had reckoned on 27.Ne5? Rxf2 28.Qxf2 Bc5–+ 29.Qxc5 Qxg2#. Incredibly, Black must lose a piece ...]> 27...Rd8 <[Fischer: The Queen has no shelter. On 27...Qg6 28.Rxe7 ; Or 27...Qh4 28.Rxf8+ ; Or 27...Bf6 28.Qd6! ]> 28.Qe4 Qh4 29.Rf4 and BLACK RESIGNS <(If 29. ... 29...Qg3 30.Rxe7 is most efficient. - Fischer)> |
|
| Oct-09-07 |
| RookFile: Fischer's willingness to put 3 of his losses in My 60 Memorable Games was noteworthy for that timeperiod - other game collections by authors usually had one win after another of theirs in the book. |
|
| Oct-31-07 |
| stupidiot21: what if fischer went 26. Bc5 instead of Rf8 |
|
| Oct-31-07 |
| RookFile: Well, after 26.... Bc5 27. Nxc5 Qc1+ 28. Kh2 Qh6+ 29. Rh4, Spassky has no problems. But 26..... b6 might be an interesting move. |
|
| Oct-31-07 |
| stupidiot21: how about 26...Bc5 27.Nxc5 Qxc5 28.? |
|
| Oct-31-07 |
| RookFile: Ah.
26... Bc5 27. Nxc5 Qxc5
click for larger view28. Re8+ and now:
A) 28..... Qf8 29. Rfxf8 checkmate
B) 28..... Rxe8 29. Qxc5 wins the queen. |
|
| Oct-31-07 |
| stupidiot21: yeah sorry i completely missed that |
|
| May-23-08 |
| gambitking: Wow. Why did Fischer resign? White might have had a slight edge or mating attack, I guess. It was quite shocking how Spassky made apparently bad strategical decisions like allowing bad pawn structure, king safety, and trading off pieces, but I guess he was good enough to see it would benefit him in the end. The Gambit King |
|
| May-23-08 |
| Petrosianic: <Wow. Why did Fischer resign?> Cause he's losing a full piece at the end and Spassky has a superior position to boot (better placed major pieces, Fischer's king is draftier. There's no real compensation for the piece. <It was quite shocking how Spassky made apparently bad strategical decisions like allowing bad pawn structure, king safety, and trading off pieces, but I guess he was good enough to see it would benefit him in the end.> No, he just got a bit lucky. He played a 19th century opening in true 19th century style (moves like 9. Nc3, instead of 9. c3 like most would play now), but it really shouldn't have worked. Fischer just got a bit distracted at the end and lost his way with all the heavy artillery flying around the open center. A lucky escape for Spassky. |
|
| Sep-29-08 |
| BraveUlysses: Fischer's bishop is lost. Games like this fry my mind trying to imagine how these guys tiptoe through each others' brilliant minefields. Strategically, Spassky established control of the centre at the cost of a pawn and managed to survive and win. |
|
| Sep-30-08 |
| jovack: fischer got locked in
in an interview, he claimed "he pushed too hard for the win", and now that I see this, I have to agree with that
i think fischer was better at the start, and slowly put himself in a worse and worse positioni guess he got his revenge in 72 |
|
| Dec-21-08 |
| WhiteRook48: Oh I thought that the black pawn promoted on f5 to a plus sign. |
|
| May-02-09 |
| WhiteRook48: a bust to the king's gambit |
|
Jun-05-09
 |
| zanshin: Rybka 3 analysis suggests Fischer was winning until move 26:
click for larger view [-0.26] d=19 26...b6 27.a4 Ba3 28.a5 Qd8 29.Qxd8 Rxd8 30.axb6 axb6 31.Rc4 Rg3 32.Kf1 Bb2 33.Ne5 Rd1 34.Ke2 Rd2 35.Kf1 (0:06.30) 52831kN <26...Rf8?> blocks an escape square for the Bishop allowing it to be trapped after <27.Re5>. At least that's my interpretation. 
click for larger view [+2.85] d=17 27.Re5 Rd8 28.Qe4 Qg6 (0:01.55) 16057kN Even with Rybka, I find this game hard to understand. |
|
| Jul-08-09 |
| Everett: <zanshin> A quarter of a pawn advantage is "winning?" |
|
Jul-08-09
|
| zanshin: <Everett: <zanshin> A quarter of a pawn advantage is "winning?"> Maybe 'winning' is too strong - how about slight advantage? |
|
| Jul-10-09 |
| Everett: Agreed. Quite a difference between the two. |
|
Jul-11-09
 |
| whiteshark: Did Fischer bust the <King's Gambit> or did the <King's Gambit> bust Fischer? |
|
| Jul-31-09 |
| WhiteRook48: Fischer "Spassky won because of an oversight, not virtue of the King's Gambit!" |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
