< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·
|Jun-02-19|| ||SChesshevsky: <James51358> Guessing 37...Rh8 might've had something to do with keeping the h-pawn subdued though any white h-pawn tricks are tough to make work with both rooks still on and the king near the g-file. The main idea might just be to tempt the exchange of whites DSB that looks to hold everything together. Also threatening to invade via ...Rh4 is suggested but maybe not workable until the white passed d-pawn is somehow nullified. Players are usually looking for or threatening ways to invade with rooks in the endgame. Here both Fischer and Spassky accomplish this but apparently Fischer's invasion was more effective.|
|Jun-12-19|| ||James51358: I love the sequence of moves between moves 42 and 52 that landed Fischer's king on a6 to support his dangerous queenside pawns. Also, getting rid of Spassky's past D pawn in the process. Though, Fischer put his King through a vicious attack, he ended up with a strong position. Interesting note: out of 74 moves in this game Fischer's King made 17 of these. your thoughts?|
|Jun-23-19|| ||James51358: Just think, if it wasn't for the long time control rules at the time of this match, this fantastic game probably wouldn't have happened. This game took 9 hours to play. 5 hours the first day and 4 hours the second day. This 61 year old man is sadden that the great game of chess, for the most part, is nothing more than bullet and blitz games now. Why are we in such a hurry? your thoughts?|
|Jun-23-19|| ||beatgiant: <James51358>
The grandmasters of today feel that adjournments are meaningless because the players would check the adjourned position on their computers and get complete and near perfect analysis instantly.
Do you think we should expect GM's to play a 9-hour game with no adjournment?
|Jun-23-19|| ||perfidious: That formidable analytical team which assisted Botvinnik in his efforts to hold the draw against Fischer would have had nothing on today's Stockfish et al.|
|Jun-23-19|| ||harrylime: <perfidious: That formidable analytical team which assisted Botvinnik in his efforts to hold the draw against Fischer would have had nothing on today's Stockfish et al.>|
Give Fischer Stockfish . The Fischer of 1970. Just like Magnus the draw King has ..
That would be interesting. 😎😚
|Jun-23-19|| ||James51358: Beatgiant, perfidious, so today's GM's would use computers to analyze adjourned positions? That's sad indeed. Have we lost the ability to think for ourselves? The players of Fischer's day didn't computers to analyze. They had to rely on their own intelligence to figure positions out. I guess I'm too old school. Your thoughts?|
|Jun-23-19|| ||harrylime: Give Robert Fischer a STOCKFISH .. a Robert Fischer circa 1967 ... and HE WOULD LITERALLY BLOW YOU AWAY.|
|Jun-23-19|| ||perfidious: Regrettably, the possibility cannot be excluded; we have seen instances of computer assistance going back to 1993, the Stone Age, if not earlier, involving even some very strong players--stronger than your humble correspondent ever was.|
Details of the 1993 contretemps may be found here: Von Neumann. I was present for part of the event but only heard of it on my next visit to Philadelphia, some weeks later.
|Jun-24-19|| ||keypusher: < James51358: Beatgiant, perfidious, so today's GM's would use computers to analyze adjourned positions? That's sad indeed. Have we lost the ability to think for ourselves?>|
Of course not. But since the computers are now stronger than human grandmasters, present and past, rules of competition have to be changed to deal with that ineluctable fact.
|Jun-24-19|| ||perfidious: The truly unfortunate part is that some players, in chess and worse still, in life, cannot or will not think for themselves. As <keypusher> notes, no getting away from it.|
|Jun-26-19|| ||beatgiant: <James51358>
<Beatgiant, perfidious, so today's GM's would use computers to analyze adjourned positions?>
How could we implement a rule against using computers for adjournment analysis? During the rest period, would we place the players in some kind of isolation ward under constant surveillance until the game resumption?
And without an effective rule against it, any player would be crazy not to use computers. It would be conceding a huge advantage to the other player.
|Jun-27-19|| ||James51358: beatgiant, it's not about rule and regulations. This simple man believes in our own ability to think for ourselves. We humans don't need a computer's aide. I, personally, am just an average player. I choose to play to my own abilities, with no outside help. The real excitement in this game is our abilities to think for ourselves. We don't need computer assistance. your thoughts!|
|Jun-27-19|| ||beatgiant: <James51358>
It's easy for us as amateurs to forswear computers, but the cold, hard fact is that computers are a game-changer for professional play. No top player today can afford to do without them.
|Jul-01-19|| ||James51358: beatgiant, that is plain sad. I play on chess.com. Win or lose, I love this brain game. My record 147 wins, 185 losses, and 10 draws. I've never nor will I ever use a computer to assist me in any of my games. Again, its saddens me that the pros need to do so.|
|Jul-01-19|| ||James51358: Anyways, back to this great game between 2 awesome players that didn't have nor needed a computer. Will someone, please, explain how 69 Rd1+ and 69 Rc3+ are really any different. Doesn't Fischer win either way?|
|Jul-01-19|| ||beatgiant: <James51358>
On 69. Rc3+, if Black tries to advance the king with 69...Ke2, White can liquidate the pawns with 70. Rxc4 f3 71. Re4+ Kf1 72. Ra4 f2 73. Bc5. How do you think Fischer could win?
|Jul-31-19|| ||James51358: 69. Rd1+. i wonder how many such blunders that I've made in my own games? lol. And, what about other world champions? The blunders they made.|
|Jul-31-19|| ||harrylime: Boris is God.
Bobby is more than a God.
Discuss. ( WITHOUT STOCK FISH pleeeeze )
|Aug-01-19|| ||James51358: Could Spassky's 14 Bxa4 be a mistake? Due to being down on material and losing his white squared bishop that was aiming at Fischer's king? I offer that 14 Bc4 may be a better choice. your thoughts?|
|Aug-01-19|| ||utssb: 14.Bc4 shouldn't work because of
14...Ne4 15.Qe4 Nc5 16.Qd5 Ne6 with ...c6 and b5 coming ex. 17.Ra5 c6 18.Ra8 cd5 19.Bd5 Nc7
14...Ne4 15.Qe4 Nc5 16.Qe3 Ne6 safe with the pawn up for Black
14...Ne4 15.Bb5 Bd7 16.Ba4 Ba4 17.Qe4 Bc6 pawn, bishop pair and tempo for Black
16.Qe4 Bb5 17.Qb7 c6 (or anything really)
14...Ne4 15.Bb5 Bd7 16.Bd7 Qd7 17.Qe4 Nc5 or b5
|Aug-01-19|| ||utssb: or 14...Ne4 15.Bb5 Nac3 rather|
|Aug-03-19|| ||James51358: This awesome game between 2 great players is so much fun to analyze!!! It's like, how did this game happen? No computers, just 2 intelligence human brains at work!! INCREDIBLE!!! This game took over 9 Hours to play.Not to mention the over night analyzing!! WOW!!!|
|Sep-08-19|| ||N.O.F. NAJDORF: 'I found ways that Spassky could get a winning position in the opening of the Alekhine Defence. Fischer played the Alekhine Defence and Spassky missed a very big advantage.'|
|Sep-13-19|| ||James51358: N.O.F.. I'm sure post game analyze prove that both players missed some good moves. I believe 1....Nf6 hit Spassky like a cold shower. He was not prepared for it at all and lost this beautiful, yet brutal, game to Fischer. Giving Fischer a strong 3 point lead with just 11 games left. Any thoughts?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·