< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·
|Dec-24-03|| ||henrilin: The final position looks promising for black, probably a threefold repetition then. But if black tries 32... b5 (Suetin) he has good winning chances. By the way: does anybody know weather Petro was satisfied with a draw here or if he overlooked the threefold, or offered himself? |
|Dec-25-03|| ||pim: Henrilin, I have a book in Spanish by Petrosian in which he says: "El peon 'd' lo perdio Fischer y poco despues cayo en una posicion perdida. Pero por primera vez en mi vida cai en una triple repeticion de posiciones. Yo soy en general una persona prudente, y en el ajedrez en mayor medida siempre temo a dos cosas: escribir en la partida aplazada una jugada imposible, y tropezar con un triple repeticion en una posicion mejor. Cuando Fischer exigio las tablas no podio comprender de que triple repeticion hablaba." (Petrosian, Ajedrez en la cumbre, p.182).
My Spanish is not good enough to provide you with a literal translation, but it is clear that Petrosian overlooked the threefold repetition, and was quite upset by this, as he thought he was better. Moreover, in this book the last moves are different from the ones indicated by the database: instead of 32 .. Qe5 Petrosian played Re5 33 Dd3 Rd5 draw. He avoided repeating the same moves, but ended up repeating the same position three times. Playing b7-b5 would have been a way to continue the game. |
|Jan-12-04|| ||technical draw: <pim> Here's a literal translation: "Fischer lost the "d" pawn and later fell into a lost position. For the first time in my life I fall for a threefold position repetition. I am, generally speaking, a prudent person, and in chess I mainly fear two things: sealing an impossible move in an adjourned game, and falling into a threefold repetition with a better position. When Fischer demanded the draw I could not understand what triple repetition he was talking about." |
|Jan-12-04|| ||Whitehat1963: Why doesn't Petrosian take the rook on a1? He has like four opportunities but he never bites. Why? I can't see what's so dangerous about 13 ... Bxa1 in particular. |
|Jan-12-04|| ||chessgames.com: Whitehat1963, we'll have crafty analyze 13...Bxa1 for us. However, the answer may be simply that White will be able to exploit Black's weak dark squares with a very dangerous attack, and computers are notoriously weak at taking positional considerations like that into account unless there is an immediate tactical solution. |
|Jan-12-04|| ||crafty: 13...xa1 14. xa1 f6 15. d1 h8 16. ef4 b8 (eval -0.69; depth 17 ply; 2000M nodes)|
|Jan-12-04|| ||aard2beat: 1st whitehat u must understand there is an immediate mate threat of nf6 + k h1 nh5+ kg8 q g7 mate. i plugged the following positon into fritz with move 15 being ne2-f4. the computer immediately stated it was up against a very strong player and had black minus alot. |
|Jan-12-04|| ||Sneaky: At the end of crafty's line, I don't understand what Black is going to do about the obvious 17.h5. |
|Jan-12-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Sneaky, it might be right out of crafty's "horizon." But, assuming that Crafty is correct (I don't know if that's true of course), what would white really gain from 17. Nh5? It can't just be about taking the f6 pawn can it? White's already down the exchange so black, especially being Petrosian, can happily give it back up in order to secure a draw. I think that Fischer may have a slight advantage in the end. Petrosian may have avoided taking the rook just because it's not easy defending a minor piece attack even if it's unsound, especially over the board. |
|Jan-12-04|| ||tamar: Sneaky/Benjamin Lau: Fritz 7 suggests the fine move 17 Re1! on move 17 at the end of crafty's line with its assessment +.97 for white.
17 Re1 prepares Nh5 and freezes almost all of blacks pieces. They is also the impending threat of Re8 once the threats on f6 are all in place.
This may be a case of Petrosian's famous sense of danger being proved true. How does black untangle? One line goes 17...Qd6 18 Nh5 f4 19 Nf6 Rf6 20 Nf6 Nd4 21 Ne8 Qb6 and black has severe problems. |
|Jan-12-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: Fritz's continuation looks good. It looks like Fischer's leaving the exchange en prise was sound. Although I think that Petrosian could have taken the rook and survived, there would be little point, since he would have to give it back up to draw the game later on anyway, but get stuck in an inferior position for the endgame. |
|Jan-13-04|| ||Calli: Agree that in Crafty's line, the continuation 17.Nh5 or 17.Re1 followed by Nh5 wins for White. |
16.Nh3! threatening Ng5 was equal in Bellon-Segal, Dortmund 1980.
24.Rb1! is recommended by Kholmov as giving good drawing chances.
A lucky draw for Fischer.
|Jan-13-04|| ||Sneaky: <what would white really gain from 17. Nh5? It can't just be about taking the f6 pawn can it?> No not just a pawn! There's the revealed attack on the queen, the revealed attack on the king, and some mating nets. There's too many possibilities but here are some example lines that I was looking at:|
17.h5 a6? (I always look at a quiet move first) 18. dxf6 e7 19. d7+ g8 20.d5+ and its mate soon
17.h5 e5 18. dxf6 e7 19. d5 g6? (he has to lose the knight) 20. g4+ g8 21.h6#
17.h5 e8 18.e1!? xh5? (too greedy) 19. xf6 g6 20.h5+ g8 21.d5+ etc.
|Jan-13-04|| ||Benjamin Lau: The threats are rather ugly but I would think that Petrosian would be able to sidestep them. Of course though I agree that the rook should not be taken, it's very hard to find an accurate defense in a practical game. |
|Jan-13-04|| ||Whitehat1963: What about taking the rook on move 12 then trying to castle on the queenside? |
|Jan-13-04|| ||tamar: <Whitehat:What about taking the rook on move 12 then trying to castle on the queenside?> Trust Fischer and Petrosian on this one! 12...Bxa1 13 Qxa1 f6 (No choice. Queen takes rook check on h8 is threatened.) 14 Nxf6+ Kf7 15 Nh5 Rg8 16 0-0 and I like this even better for white. King safety and white's knights will set up camp on h5 and f4 until the cows come home. The queen will observe from long range for an opportunity to invade, and the rook will head to e1 or d1 depending on where the black queen goes.
This could have been a landmark game if Petrosian had not succumbed to nerves and allowed the three-fold repetition. He declined a sound exchange sacrifice four times, and achieved a winning position! Credit to Fischer also who saw all these patterns too, probably in his home preparation. |
|Jan-29-05|| ||mohd rafi fan: i never understood how Fischer managed to do so well with such a simple style! |
|Jan-29-05|| ||Kingdumb: <mohd> I have been studying Bobby Fisher since 1972 when he soundly defeated Boris. One does not have to be flashy to be good. He is a perfect example of that. |
|Jan-29-05|| ||euripides: One of the most interesting things about Fischer is the contrast between the deep sanity of his chess and - well what can one say about his Weltanschauung ? |
|Jan-29-05|| ||WMD: <Moreover, in this book the last moves are different from the ones indicated by the database: instead of 32 .. Qe5 Petrosian played 32...Re5 33.Qd3 Rd5 draw. He avoided repeating the same moves, but ended up repeating the same position three times>|
Right, the score really should be corrected as it's important in understanding the finish.
|Jan-29-05|| ||euripides: It's clear that Petrosian had taken a bet before playing this game and was therefore trying to put his king's bishop on as many weird squares as possible. |
|Apr-20-05|| ||perfidious: Maybe a computer can come up with a line which holds after the win of exchange by Black, but I'd be disinclined in an OTB game- I believe the ensuing position is very hard to handle, while not having analysed to any depth.|
In response to Euripides' comment, an American contemporary of Fischer's (possibly Robert Byrne, though it's been so long, that I'm not sure), once wrote something to the effect that many strong players had emotional problems which had a negative effect on their play; he went on to note that Fischer was REALLY (the author's emphasis) weird, but that it all went away when he sat down to play.
The underlying simplicity of Fischer's style is reminiscent of Capablanca, and I believe Fischer has acknowledged this in the past. One game amongst others which might have been played by Capablanca is Smyslov v Fischer, 1970- a superb display by Black.
|Apr-20-05|| ||perfidious: An addendum; it's the game played at Rovinj/Zagreb, not at Buenos Aires that year. |
|Apr-20-05|| ||Boomie: 21...h6 (better was h6) allowed a nifty equalizing line. Maybe Fischer thought he could get more by leaving the heavy artillery on the board.|
21...h6 22. xe6 fxe6 23. xf5 xf5 24. xf5 exf5 25. d6 g5 26. xh6 xh5 27. xh5 f7 28. g2 e8
|Apr-20-05|| ||Boomie: Here's one possible line to victory for black.
30. e2 b5 31. e8 e5 32. d7 a5 33. a3 d5 34. e8 d8 35. e3 g8 36. h2 g5 37. g3 xg3+ 38. fxg3 e8
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 3 ·