|Mar-01-06|| ||Maynard5: This is an exceptional game by Spassky. The critical move is of course 36. Nf5. The attack is decisive irrespective of whether the sacrifice is accepted. The preparation for the attack is also very skillful.|
|Mar-01-06|| ||RookFile: Spassky was a great expert in the Ruy Lopez Breyer system, from either side of the board.|
|Oct-18-06|| ||OneArmedScissor: Why <33. ...Qd8>?|
|Apr-13-08|| ||grasser: A photo of this game can be found here.
Updated: 04/13/2008 16:29:09
|Dec-02-08|| ||JoergWalter: It is interesting that Spassky introduced 15. Bg5 in this game and in 1992 he had to fight against it in the first game of the rematch with Fischer. And what a beautiful game that was!|
|May-12-09|| ||returnoftheking: OneArmedScissor: Why <33. ...Qd8>?|
If 33...hxg4 then 34Rh1
if Kg7 then Nf5 and if Kg8 then still Nf5 with pin of f6 coming.
Franco annotates this game in "the art of attacking chess" and says that Rc1 is the "new" move of Spassky.
He gives 26.b3 an exclamation mark because it is good to prevent a later Nd3. Because of this I wonder why Unzicker played cxb3.
Very nice game and the only win of Spassky out of 14 between these players.
|Dec-12-14|| ||zydeco: Spassky seems proud of 17.Rc1, which is a kind of 'half-move.' The move has some useful points in itself but doesn't point towards a plan or alter the balance of the position. In his notes to the game, Spassky says that the move is in keeping with the stolid spirit of the Ruy Lopez. I think this kind of move is also a specialty of Spassky's, and characteristic of his style: he likes to duck and weave through the middlegame, preserving all the dynamic possibilities in the position, even at the risk of playing somewhat planlessly. This is in contrast to, say, Fischer, who always plays concretely. |
18.Rc1 gave Unzicker the opportunity for 18....d5, but it seems that neither player considered that possibility very carefully.
In their notes the players disagreed about the position after 24.Bxh6 Nxg4 25.Bxg7 Nxf2 26.Kxf2 Kxg7. Unzicker thought black would be better. Spassky thought he had decent attacking chances, but apparently preferred to play more calmly.
24....Ng8 25.h4 Qe7 might have been a more careful defense.
Unzicker loses the thread from moves 25 to 33. He should have tried to work up counterplay on the queenside.
|Apr-10-15|| ||A.T PhoneHome: This is one of Spassky's five wins at Second Piatigorsky Cup (1966). Strong triumph by this great player as he finished first outright before Fischer and Larsen.|
Spassky's tournament tactic was clever; win only when you need to and conserve energy and it worked! Participating just a month after loss in the World Championship match and winning in such a strong tournament is admirable achievement, don't you think?
|Jun-28-16|| ||edubueno: 24...Cg4 is wrong. Better 24...Ccd7|