< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Dec-24-05|| ||twinlark: My apologies <Mateo>. I had made a mistake in numbering the moves and it looked like the 18th move for Black and the 19th move for White were missing. I've renumbered them and they should now make sense.|
The story picks up from your suggested 17...Rc8 and White's response of 18.Qd4:
18...f5 19.Be6 mate
18...e5 19.Qg4 h5 20.Qg6
18...d5 19.Bh6 Bf8 20.Bxf8 Rxf8 21.QXa7 with two pawns for the exchange and three passed pawns on the Q side. If 19...Bg4 20.Qg4 followed by h4 wins
18....h5 (to prevent 19.Qg4) 19.Bh6 Bf6 20. Qxa7 Bxb2 and Black’s windy King position, the extra pawn, combined with White’s three passed pawns and active pieces compensates for the exchange.
18...Bg5 19. f4 Bh4 20.f5 with counterplay for White (eg: 20...Qb6 21.fxe6 Qxd4 22.Bxd4 fxe6 24.Bf6).
|Dec-24-05|| ||twinlark: <Mateo> What I'm suggesting is that 17...Rc8 allows White counterplay with 18.Qd4. |
That is to say: the White Queen is better on d4 than on c3 as it is commands more of the board, including that seemingly insignificant pawn on a7.
|Dec-24-05|| ||Mateo: <twinlark> Now I see. After 14... Nd2 15. Qc3 Nf1 16. Bg7 Re8 17. Rf1 Rc8 18. Qd4 Bg5 (as you suggest) 19. f4 Bh4 20. g3 Be7 21. f5, White gets good attacking prospects. So I am not so sure now that 16... Re8 (?!) is good.|
I would return to my first suggestion: 14... Nd2 15. Qc3 Nf1 16. Bg7 Rc8 17. Qd4 Nh2 18. Bf8 Bf8 19. Kh2 Bg7. Advantage Black.
|Dec-24-05|| ||RookFile: You do get the sense in this game that Korchnoi was better, and Fischer did well to get a draw here.|
|Dec-24-05|| ||HannibalSchlecter: I thought the ending was about even until the rooks came off, then Korchnoi had better king position but with bishops of opposite color white can easily threaten the enemy pawns with the bishop then blockade, so I don't think Fischer was ever in trouble.|
|Dec-24-05|| ||twinlark: <Mateo>
Your analysis in returning the exchange is fine.
But there's nothing wrong with 16...Re8 (keeping the exchange) as long as it's followed by 17...Bh4 as I showed in my earlier analysis.
It's 17...Rc8 that doesn't work.
|Dec-24-05|| ||RookFile: So I guess Korchnoi can by force, in the final position, win at least one of Fischer's pawns, but not the game.|
|Dec-27-05|| ||slavyi: I meant 17.Bh6 - there is no need to take the night right away. I guess that after all Korchnoi should have taken the rook, as I can not see a real danger to black's king (other than oppening its position and holding it in the corner)
Mateo, don't get me wrong. I am trying to understand why Fisher made the fork possible by moving his qeen to f3 and on the next move, Korchnoi retreated as if he was trying to protect his king. I am just suggesting some variations, hoping for help from other people (like yourself) to find a solution. For this particular game you convinced me that maybe Fisher blundered and then Korchnoi got scared to execute so he could not capitalize on Fisher's blunder.|
|Feb-05-06|| ||deadlyfischer: two gigants on the chess table|
|Aug-20-06|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Mateo, twinlark, slavyi><It is difficult to explain why Korchnoi did not play to win the exchange with 14... Nd2.> Well, it's not so difficult after all. Fischer's 14th move was not Qf3 but Qg4.:-)|
|Aug-20-06|| ||twinlark: |
<Fischer's 14th move was not Qf3 but Qg4.:-)>
All that effort...
|Aug-21-06|| ||twinlark: Thanks for fixing the 14th move <CG.com>|
|Dec-23-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Korchnoi played well against Fischer in general. Korchnoi was certainly someone who wouldn't collapse at the sight of Fischer, he just did things his own way. In their nine or so games together, I think Korchnoi held an edge (just an impression of the general character of these encounters), although they broke even with three wins each. A match between these two would have been really interesting. Fischer once said of Korchnoi, "I don't know what to play against him!"|
These two would no doubt have produced many more great games had the American not retired from competition.
|Dec-23-09|| ||I play the Fred: Worthy of note: Korchnoi was +2 with Fischer outside of blitz.|
|Dec-23-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: According to this database, both Fischer and Korchnoi had two wins each in classical time controls. They broke even in blitz.|
|Dec-23-09|| ||AnalyzeThis: Fischer and Korchnoi were great fighters.|
|Dec-23-09|| ||paavoh: @Rookfile: <You do get the sense in this game that Korchnoi was better, and Fischer did well to get a draw here.>|
Yes, Korchnoi pressed hard but limited material and BOCs were his obstacle. Both took a good care of their pawn structures, any slip-up by Black would have freed the White Q-side pawns for advance.
A nice game, discussed mostly during yuletide, it seems...
|Dec-23-09|| ||M.D. Wilson: Must be that time of the year?|
|Jun-07-11|| ||joelsontang: Korchnoi typically shows his counterpunching style seeking complications 9...Nxd4 10. Bxd4 10...b5 11.Nxb5 11...Ba6 12.c4 12...Nxe4|
After 14.Qg4 I think an ordinary grandmaster would make it easy for Fischer who has the 2 bishops. Korchnoi is a real fighter! 19.Rad1 tries to put Black under pressure with the threat to win a pawn as well as develop a piece, but I think Fischer overlooked 19...Nxb6 leaving the white a7 bishop undefended and forcing 20.Bxb6 and 20...Bxb6 attacking the white Queen with tempo, making the game safe for black after move 20.
With Queens off the board, Black has good counterplay against the white Q-side pawns just make sure they didn't become a threat by advancing.
24...g5 is what I think Capablanca would play, trying to create activity before your opponent does. Thereafter it looks like Fischer has to fight to draw with Rooks off the board.
|Nov-15-11|| ||joelsontang: I'd like to introduce a new variation, why not 11.e5? so in the case of 11...dxe5 12.Bxe5 Qxd1 13.Raxd1 white would be greatly ahead in development to create and exploit weaknesses in Black's position. Could I thus have such a variation named after me? Since no one has played it before?|
|Mar-10-12|| ||keithbc: "In all my life, I shall not play such an endgame better." (this is qoted in Brady's biography but in
'Russians' vs Fischer'(Plisetsky & Voreonkov) there is a quote from Korchnoi following this game|
...' In my game with Fischer I had a definite advantage. His torment lasted 60 moves or so, and when he finally drew the game he said that never again would he play such an endgame'
So someone is lying - this quote could not have come from them both . Who is right and who 'saved' the game?!
|Aug-26-12|| ||Everett: Fischer said them both. They are consistent.|
|Aug-26-12|| ||Jim Bartle: The two comments seem very similar.|
|Oct-26-12|| ||laikn1: 35... g4 I think is better. Or even before move 35. White looks very pressed|
|Oct-26-12|| ||harrylime: Bobby came out of the opening having seemingly playing agressive moves ,with a difficult position entering the middlegame/endgame transition ... |
The fact that he drew this game is testament to him being Bobby Fischer ..
Ofcourse Fischer played pretty in frequently even back then .. So he had no chance of 'ironing' out results and games like this .. and they are seized upon by every 'Fischerhater' going ..
Fischer would've beaten Korchnoi or Geller pretty easily in any match in 1970, including the Soviet might behind those two too ..
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·