|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-13-13
 | | Hesam7: Going over old analysis with new engines and new hardware is always fun. Famously Smyslov suggested the following for White: 25 e6!? Nc4 26 Qe2 Nb2 27 Nf5!?  click for larger viewAfter 27...Nd1 28 Ng7 Kg7 29 Qe5 f6 30 Qd5
 click for larger viewHere Kasparov in OMGP4 continues with 30...Nb2?? 31 g5 hg5 32 fg5 Qd8 33 Nd7 concluding "and the black king will most probably not survive." However Kasparov misses Black's best defense from the second diagram: 30...a3! 31 Rd1 a2 32 Qd4 Kh7 33 Ra1 Rd8 34 Nd7 c5 35 Qc4 Qc6  click for larger viewwhere the best thing White can do is to head for a slightly worse endgame with 36 Ra2 ... |
 |
Mar-13-13
 | | Sneaky: Great discovery, Hesam. I feel like Bobby just slapped Kasparov from beyond the grave :) |
 |
Mar-13-13
 | | OhioChessFan: I know it's Fischer and all, but Spassky with 2 minors for a Rook doesn't strike me as slightly worse. |
 |
Mar-13-13
 | | Hesam7: <OhioChessFan: I know it's Fischer and all, but Spassky with 2 minors for a Rook doesn't strike me as slightly worse.> Black is a pawn up (so it is RP vs BN) and White's pawn on c2 is weak. |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | Hesam7: <Eyal: From William Lombardy's "The Fischer Story: A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma": <...Although Kavalek and I knew Bobby's plan of attack, Boris seemed uncomfortable when the game continued. The Russian nervously circled the table while Bobby considered this move, then that. A position was reached which many experts judged drawn. At this stage Bobby decided to go into a huddle. He stewed about 10 minutes over Move 62, another 10 over 63, and then an hour over his 64th turn! Time spent in finding the best try in a drawn position. And suddenly Bobby had won...>> Lombardy's numbers for the time Fischer spent for his moves does not add up. The following much more plausible account is from http://www.crackteam.org/2008/12/17... <Fischer took 38 minutes for his 61st move, which was the longest of the match for him. And he had spent 21 minutes on the previous move that allowed his Rook to be imprisoned. He had played the first 18 moves of the adjournment quite rapidly, until Spassky’s 60. Be7.> |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | tamar: Although I believe it likely White can draw, the 30...a3 line does change the assessment of the position. Bondarevski used Smyslov's line to say that an in form Spassky would have won this game, but that is in doubt now. Just a question <Hesam7> Which engine did you use, and did it consider 35 Qd5 Qc7 36 Bxf6 in your last line? An early version Houdini considers that line even (the trick is that taking the bishop allows 36...exf6 37 e7 and Queen entry to f7+) |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | Hesam7: <tamar: Although I believe it likely White can draw, the 30...a3 line does change the assessment of the position.> I agree White can draw but he has to give up any ambition of getting anything more than that. <Bondarevski used Smyslov's line to say that an in form Spassky would have won this game, but that is in doubt now.> I find that a bizarre statement, why did everybody experience a dip in form when they played Fischer at that time? I mean if anything Spassky did better in the match than his rating suggested (he gained rating points from the match!). <Just a question <Hesam7> Which engine did you use, and did it consider 35 Qd5 Qc7 36 Bxf6 in your last line? An early version Houdini considers that line even (the trick is that taking the bishop allows 36...exf6 37 e7 and Queen entry to f7+)> I use Critter 1.6a, it is free, you can find it here: http://www.vlasak.biz/critter/  click for larger viewYes 35 Qd5 Qc7 36 Bf6 leads to a drawn endgame, Critter saw the same idea with 35 Qc4 Qc7 36 Bf6 which I tried to avoid by 35...Qc6. But here 35 Qd5 Qc6? 36 Qc6 bc6 37 Bf2 is not good for Black because both of his Rooks will be tied to defending the pawns on e7 and a2 and he can not make any progress. Bottom Line: In Smyslov's line White is likely to draw. PS: For certain moves Critter takes a great deal of time to "understand" them (for example 26 Qe2 above) so I am combining it with known chess literature. |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | Hesam7: Looking at the game another idea which Kasparov does not even mention is 18...g5!? 19 Bg3 (the sacrifices on g5 just lose Black has the Qc6-Qh6 defensive maneuver) 19...Qc6! click for larger viewDespite its appearance, White's position is quite bad. Black has a myriad of threats: ...Rd8, ...Bf5, ...Qc4, ...Qc2 and without an engine (which suggests 20 Qd3) I would be hard pressed to find a move that does not lose on the spot. |
 |
| Mar-14-13 | | Olavi: <I find that a bizarre statement, why did everybody experience a dip in form when they played Fischer at that time? I mean if anything Spassky did better in the match than his rating suggested (he gained rating points from the match!)> The argument is based on analysis of the games, not rating. The number of elementary Spassky blunders is unbelievable. But this game is certainly not a case in point. |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | harrylime: < Olavi: <I find that a bizarre statement, why did everybody experience a dip in form when they played Fischer at that time? I mean if anything Spassky did better in the match than his rating suggested (he gained rating points from the match!)>
The argument is based on analysis of the games, not rating. The number of elementary Spassky blunders is unbelievable. But this game is certainly not a case in point.> The argument is based on Fischer. And Fischer alone. Chess is just not pure cold mathematics or silicon .. it's a sport too .. over the board sport.. Fischer was that good he intimidated his opponents before a move was played. He had an 'aurora' ... |
 |
| Mar-14-13 | | RookFile: I've always thought it was funny how Petrosian experienced a dip in strength against Fischer, but reached new heights in understanding while playing both (!) Karpov and Kasparov even. |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | keypusher: <RookFile: I've always thought it was funny how Petrosian experienced a dip in strength against Fischer, but reached new heights in understanding while playing both (!) Karpov and Kasparov even.> I guess Fischer's failure to play either Karpov or Kasparov forces his admirers to resort to these silly expedients. No one ever thought or suggested that Petrosian reached new heights against Karpov and Kasparov. Most of his games with Karpov were GM draws. All of his games against Kasparov except the last were played when Kasparov was a teenager. If you compare Fischer's teenage games against Petrosian with Kasparov's, Bobby does not come off well, though of course Petrosian was stronger in '62 than '82. When I first saw this game Kasparov vs Petrosian, 1982 I thought I hadn't seen Petrosian positionally dominated like that since Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971. Kasparov was 19. |
 |
| Mar-14-13 | | Olavi: <The argument is based on Fischer. And Fischer alone. Fischer was that good he intimidated his opponents before a move was played.> This is not boxing. An argument about a full information game cannot be based on one player only. Sure, if you can intimidate your opponents, maybe they cannot fight at their best; but to intimidate them into putting pieces en prise? No way. |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | perfidious: <Olavi> In the crazy world of <harrylime>, anything is possible; in fact, when it comes to Fischer, on pain of death, we shall not blaspheme that otherworldly being. Let us deal in realities, as we leave <harry> to his delusions. |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | sbevan: Thanks <Hesam7>, good research with good analysis which takes a lot of work. |
 |
| Mar-14-13 | | Olavi: <Rookfile> After game 5 of the candidates final Petrosian and Fischer were tied 4-4 with 15 draws, lifetime. Having been the better player in the first 5 games, after game 6 P. cracked completely, the last three games were very feeble - no blunders, just poor. That was indeed a case of intimidation. |
 |
Mar-14-13
 | | Hesam7: <Olavi: The argument is based on analysis of the games, not rating. The number of elementary Spassky blunders is unbelievable. But this game is certainly not a case in point.> I would take that seriously if it did not happen to everyone else who played Fischer at the time. Fischer was "blunder inducing", I don't have an explanation but you can't just say Spassky was out of form in the match, which lasted for 53 days (started on July 11 and ended when Spassky resigned on September 1 without resuming the game). |
 |
| Mar-14-13 | | Olavi: <Hesam7> Yes, that's exactly it: they did <experience a dip in form>. While I'm sure Fischer's intensity made the opponents less sure of themselves, I don't think the one move blunders can be explained, it's mystical, perhaps there is something to hypnosis after all... In any case, about Spassky's form there can be no question. |
 |
Mar-15-13
 | | Sneaky: The reason why Fischer's opponents played below their strength is simple: Everybody knows Bobby's best Soviet friend was Tal. Misha secretly taught Fischer the art of hypnotizing his opponents. And only Pal Benko (see photo) was smart enough to wear hypno-proof sunglasses, but he didn't wear them against Fischer. |
 |
| Mar-15-13 | | RookFile: I enjoy playing over Petrosian's games when I can. We're talking about a guy who had the same tactical strength as Tal, but used this ability primarily for defensive purposes. I think this lead to some profound chess. With regard to Fischer, this is what I think happened in those 1970's games. In 1971, he had defeated another dynamic player, Viktor Korchnoi, in a match were he just made one draw after another. Then, there was a game where Korchnoi let his guard down a little, and Petrosian siezed his chance to earn the lone win in that match. I think he thought he could do the same thing to Fischer when they played their match. Hindsight is always 20-20 and suggests that his best chance would have been been to try to put Fischer away early, before Fischer became fully confident in that match. If Petrosian could have taken a two game lead, Fischer might have found himself in a real bind. |
 |
| May-01-13 | | SeanAzarin: This game locked up the match for Fischer. If Spassky could have kept the deficit at 2 games, he could have [not likely, but possible] fought back to a 12-12 tie, which would have retained him the title. But once he dropped to 3 games back, Fischer ran off a series of draws and drained the life out of Spassky's chances. |
 |
May-01-13
 | | lost in space: <<Garech:> Everyone loves game six - but for me, this is the best of the match; superb chess!
-Garech
I completely agree. For me this is one of the best games ever. |
 |
| May-01-13 | | Petrosianic: Depends what the question is. This game has the most meat of any game in the match, definitely. But if by best you mean best-played, it may not be. |
 |
| May-01-13 | | RookFile: Bronstein and Soviets felt the same way. Aside from the errors, this game features rich, unusual problems to solve. It is like Lewis and Clark finding a new frontier to explore. |
 |
May-02-13
 | | HeMateMe: Pawn Sacagawea |
 |
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 ·
Later Kibitzing> |