|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 14 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-06-02
 | | Sneaky: Boris did not handle the opening very well, and Fischer "should" have won this game. But in the end, Black was losing a piece. Where exactly did Fischer go wrong? |
|
| Aug-18-02 | | bishop: In "My 60 memorable games, Fischer writes "26...Rf8?
Overlooking White's real threat. I was worried about Ne5, not realizing it could be met successfully with ...Bc5. The right defense is 26...Bf8! 27.Qxa7(if 27.Ne5 Bc5 28.Nf7+ Kg8 29.Nxg5 Bxd4 30.Rxd4 Rxg5),Bd6=.
27.Re5!
I had reckoned on 27.Ne5 Rxf2 28.Qxf2 Bc5! 29.Qxc5 Qxg2 mate. Incredibly,Black must lose a piece. While trying to figure out what was going on in Spassky's head, I blundered and lost the game!" |
|
| Oct-06-02 | | drukenknight: what about one move later: 27....Bf6 does this not have some sting? what about on move 21? Wades biography gives blacks 21st an "!" but wouldnt it be better to block the check with the B? Perhaps 21...Rg7 looks good simply because white failed to cover the RP with 22 g3. Re; the opening. This relates to the Kieseritsky we were discussing earlier. No one is sure what the 5th move is supposed to be. Main line is 5...d3 Fisher plays 5...Nf5 but I suggest 5...Qe2. spassky would probably be better w/ 6 Nxg5 |
|
| Oct-06-02 | | drukenknight: drukenknight: what about one move later: 27....Bf6 does this not have some sting?
what about on move 21? Wades biography gives blacks 21st an "!" but wouldnt it be better to block the check with the B? Perhaps 21...Rg7 looks good simply because white failed to cover the RP with 22 g3. Re; the opening. This relates to the Kieseritsky we were discussing earlier. No one is sure what the 5th move is supposed to be. Main line is 5...d3 Fisher plays 5...Nf5 but I suggest 5...Qe2. As played out, spassky would probably be better w/ 6 Nxg5 avoiding those doubled c pawns, yech! |
|
Oct-06-02
 | | Honza Cervenka: What about simple 26...b6? For example 27.Qd7 Rd8 and white cannot play 28.Qxa7 for Rxd3 29.cxd3 Qc1+ and black wins the queen - 30.Rf1 Bc5+ 31.d4 Bxd4+ 32.Rxd4 Qe3+ and 33...Rxa7. If white has not any secret tactic surprise then black has clear advantage. |
|
| Oct-06-02 | | drukenknight: Honza in your line: 26...b6 what about 27 Rg4? |
|
Oct-06-02
| | Honza Cervenka: 26...b6 27.Rg4 Qxg4... |
|
| Oct-07-02 | | drukenknight: 11 Qe2+ and exchange of queens followed by 000 would avoid the problems black is causing with the fianchetto B vs a1 |
|
| Oct-07-02 | | drukenknight: 12 c4 is better, now that Bobby has resolved the situation w/ c/d pawns for both sides, there is no reason to allow the d pawn to reconnect to the pawn chain later. Again 000 is probable but not certain. |
|
| Oct-07-02 | | drukenknight: 12...h5 is probably the simplest way to maintain the advantage in pawn structure. |
|
| Apr-16-03 | | Sarimanok: Spassky pointed out that 23...Qg3 24 Qxg3 Rxg3 threatening...Rxd3 followed by...c2. If 24 Qe2 Bd6. -My 60 Memorable Games, page 126- |
|
| Apr-19-03 | | drukenknight: does 23...Bc5+ lead to perpetual check? |
|
| Apr-19-03 | | ksadler: DK, what line were you thinking of...all I see is 23. .. Bc5+ 24. Nxc5 and then if 24. .. Rxc5 25. Rf8#. |
|
| Apr-19-03 | | drukenknight: I didnt even see that. |
|
Apr-21-03
| | Sneaky: As most of us probably know, this game got Fischer a bit steamed
and inspired him to write this little article:
<<A BUST TO THE KING'S GAMBIT>by U.S. Champion Bobby Fischer
International Grandmaster
The King's Gambit has lost popularity, but not sympathy.
Analysts treat it with kid gloves and seem reluctant to
demonstrate an outright refuatation. "The Chessplayers Manual"
by Gossip and Lipschutz, published in 1874, devotes 237 pages
to this gambit without arriving at a conclusion. To this day
the opening has been analyzed romantically - not
scientifically. Moderns seem to share the same unconscious
attitude that caused the old-timers to curse stubborn Steinitz:
"He took the beauty out of chess."
To the public, the player of the King's Gambit exhibits courage
and derring-do. The gambit has been making a comeback with the
younger Soviet masters, notably Spassky (who defeated
Bronstein, Averbach and myself with it). His victories rarely
reflected the merits of the opening since his opponents went
wrong in the mid-game. It is often the case, also, as with
Santasiere and Bronstein, that the King's Gambit is played with
a view to a favorable endgame. Spassky told me himself the
gambit doesn't give White much, but he plays it because neither
does the Ruy Lopez nor the Giuoco Piano.
The refuatation of any gambit begins with accepting it. In my
opinion the King's Gambit is busted. It loses by force. 1 P-K4 P-K4 2 P-KB4 PxP 3 N-KB3 P-Q3!
This is the key to a troublesome position, a high-class
"waiting move." At Mar Del Plata, 1959, I played 3...P-KN4
against Spassky, but this is inexact because it gives White
drawing chances in the ensuing ending... >
And the article ends with this: <And Black wins.
Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely
loses differently.>
The entire article is here: http://www.angelfire.com/games/SBCh... |
|
| Apr-21-03 | | Ashley: Thank you for providing us with this, Sneaky. |
|
| Apr-21-03 | | morphynoman2: A memorable word by Fischer in this article:
"The refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it". |
|
| Apr-21-03 | | Sylvester: Why does the refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it? |
|
| Apr-21-03 | | Sylvester: People still play the King's Gambit as white. Fischer did after this article so
it cannot have busted the opening. |
|
| Apr-22-03 | | ksadler: Of course his line didn't refute teh King's Gambit...the refutation to his line is similar to this Lawrence Day vs Johnstone Glenn, 1994 in which White plays Ng1 and then Black has to try to justify his overextended pawns. |
|
| Aug-12-03 | | Benjamin Lau: <Sylvester>
It does have a ring of truth. If you look at the King's Gambit Declined, you'll see that white wins A LOT, but if you look at the King's Gambit Accepted, you'll find that black wins more than white. The Queen's Gambit's Declined is also statistically worse than the Queen's Gambit Accepted. One reason for Fischer's words is that many gambits are unsound in one way or another. A sacrifice that doesn't win immediately often can be countered by simply hanging onto the material and giving it back at an opportune time in order to secure an advantage (in the QGA for example, the pawn is often given back early in return for better development.) Pussyfooting around by declining the gambit may make it worse because it is assuming the gambit is correct. |
|
| Sep-29-03 | | patzer2: <Honza Cervenka> I was curious as to whether your recommendation of 26. ..b3 in this famous game/position might be preferable to Fischer's recommendation of 26. ..Bf8. So, I put it to Fritz 8 to do some deep analysis. Fritz 8 did validate that Fischer's recommendation of 26. ..Bf8 (his preference in post-game analysis over the losing 26. ..Rf8?) was an equalizing move. Fritz's analysis here goes 26. ..Bf8 27. Ne5 Bc5 28. Nf7+ Kg8 29. Nh6+ Qxh6 30. Nxc5 bxc5 31. Qxc6 bxc6 32. Re3 Rd8 (-0.06 @16/47 Depth 786 kN/s) However, Fritz 8 prefers your recommendation of 26. ..b6 as its first choice, analyzing 26. ..b6 27.a4 Ba3 28. Rfe2 Bf8 29. Rf4 Bc5 30. Nxc5 bxc5 31. Qf6 Qxf6 32. Rxf6 Rd8 (-0.50 @ 17/17 Depth & 784 kN/s). Now I'm not an end game virtuoso, and I'm skeptical of small differences in computer end game position assessments, but the final Fritz position from your recommendation 26. ..b3 seems just a bit better for black than the final Fritz position from Fischer's recommendation of 26. ..Bf8. Does this mean we should conclude Fischer's recommendation is inferior? I think not! Fischer's post-game analysis in positions approaching end games is I suspect superior to that of most any computer's, including Fritz 8 running on my Pentium 4. And I don't doubt that Fischer could improve on this Fritz 8 analysis. Moreover, when assessments for positions are near equal, differences in move selection are often based on playing style (Fischer usually excelled in more tactically complicated positions, this game being a notable exception) and other psychological factors, such as assessment of opponent weaknesses. So, for Fischer, 26. ..Bf8! would have been the better move. For Fritz 8, and those of us looking for a simpler solution to a complex position, <Honza Cervenka>'s suggestion of 26. ..b3! would have been a good choice. |
|
| Sep-29-03 | | thekleinbottle: In reference to Spassky's less than perfect opening play, these days you often see 9. c3 instead of the 9. Nc3 which Spassky played here. Two examples in the database are: Ma Wortel vs F Kroeze, 1998 and B Rechel vs Ma Wortel, 1998 |
|
Sep-29-03
 | | Benzol: <patzer2> With regard to what you posted above is Fritz not so good on endgame evaluations as it is in openings and middlegames? |
|
| Sep-30-03 | | patzer2: <Benzol> Fritz is not at all bad in end games, but Super GMs who excel in end games appear to me to beat or draw the computers by forcing them into closed positions and end game situations -- where tactical middle game play (where computers excel) is a nonfactor. Moreover, end game play and end game positional assessments are two different things. If you have one side a pawn up in a drawn position, computers in general are likely to assess the side with the extra material more points -- even though the assessment is unwarranted. In addition, assessments of 0.50 or less are often meaningless as random variation in an evenly played game will frequently shift from one side to the other within or near that range, even in a hard fought draw. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 14 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
