< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·
|Nov-03-13|| ||Swedenborg: Did not Fischer sort of break the spirit the Alekhine defense in a few of his early games from the 60s? You have to excuse me, but I am still catching up on a lot of "Fischer lore".|
In any event, could Spassky have produced a more comfortable game with 4.c4?
|Nov-03-13|| ||perfessor: This is a great game, by both players. But I always found White's 7th and 8th moves odd - almost contradictory.|
|Nov-04-13|| ||Zonszein: They are indeed.
They are simply bad.
|Nov-04-13|| ||keypusher: <Swedenborg: Did not Fischer sort of break the spirit the Alekhine defense in a few of his early games from the 60s? >|
No (speaking as someone who plays it regularly). He faced it in two serious games in his life, both against Hans Berliner. Both games featured a fairly rare sideline.
<In any event, could Spassky have produced a more comfortable game with 4.c4?>
4.Nf3 and 4.c4 are both perfectly good moves and can produce comfortable games if that is what White wants.
|Nov-04-13|| ||harrylime: <perfessor: This is a great game, by both players. But I always found White's 7th and 8th moves odd - almost contradictory.>|
It is a wonderful game. Pretty iconic. As to Boris' 7th and 8th moves I can see what you mean but maybe he wanted to avoid the queen swap with Nbd2 and h3 is maybe aimed at a potential g4 and limiting Bobby's white squared bishop.
|Dec-02-13|| ||Meaux: <lost in space: Everyone loves game six> Indeed; I love game six as my #1 in 1972 due to the unpredictable opening that throws Spassky off. This game is defiantly my #2.|
|Feb-06-14|| ||Kite: I hope this isn't a bad question. After 22. Rad1, why didn't Fischer take e5 with his bishop?|
|Feb-08-14|| ||Kite: Oh I see, it's because his h6 will be open. Sorry|
|Feb-08-14|| ||SChesshevsky: < Kite: After 22. Rad1, why didn't Fischer take e5 with his bishop?>|
It's good analysis to concentrate on e5. Though Fischer couldn't take it at 22..., he saw the importance of the square and the a1 diagonal.
A lot of the play from around move 22 to 31 was related to e5 and clearing the diagonal, which ended up basically winning the game though it took awhile.
|Feb-08-14|| ||morfishine: Improvements for White have been identified over the years; for example 25.e6 (instead of 25.Qc3?) 25...Nc4 26.Qc1 and White has counterplay|
And finally, Spassky blooped the game away entirely with 69.Rd1+??? when 69.Rc3 holds the draw
Great game nonetheless
|Feb-08-14|| ||RookFile: Aside from winning the pawn, Fischer's great achievement in the opening was to transform the c8 bishop into a fearsome piece.|
|Feb-09-14|| ||morfishine: <RookFile> Excellent point: Also, the way BF "proved" 9.a4 was a mistake is was very impressive|
|Jul-11-14|| ||newzild: <perfessor> <This is a great game, by both players. But I always found White's 7th and 8th moves odd - almost contradictory.>|
White plays 7. Nbd2 for two reasons: Firstly, Black threatens to capture on e5, forcing the exchange of queens. Placing the knight on d2 blocks the exchange file. Given Spassky's match position, queen exchanges are to be avoided. Secondly, it gives White the option of playing c3 at some point, bolstering the centre and blunting the power of Black's dark-squared bishop.
White plays 8. h3 because Black is playing a hypermodern strategy of applying piece-pressure to White's advanced centre, and White therefore wants to stop 8...Bg4. On a broader strategic level, White has a space advantage and therefore wants to restrict the squares available to Black's pieces (in this case, the light-squared bishop) and the possibility of piece exchanges (by Bg4, Bxf3).
|Jul-20-14|| ||cplyakap: 69.Rd1+?? is blunder.69.Rc3! holds draw.|
|Aug-01-14|| ||guenther42: I love replaying this mind-blowing game. Botvinnik called it Fischer's greatest achievement at Reykjavik. Bronstein commented: "Out of the entire match, I find the 13th game the most attractive...like a mysterious sphynx, it teases my imagination."|
|Aug-01-14|| ||Petrosianic: I don't know if it's his greatest achievement, it's a flawed game on both sides. But it's a definite contender for most interesting game of the match. I think it was the toughest game for each of the players.|
|Sep-11-14|| ||Garech: I know everyone raves about game six, but for me, this is the game of the match. Fantastic play from Fischer!|
|Sep-11-14|| ||Petrosianic: This is a better <contest> than Game 6, but Game 6 was better played. This one has some flaws that lower the quality a little. So, it depends what you think makes a game good? The quality, or the fight?|
I think for quality of play, I'd rate Fischer's victories in this order:
But for what was the best battle, no question. It's this one.
|Sep-11-14|| ||Everett: This is the best battle. Run game #6 through any modern program and you will find just how helpful Spassky was to the result.|
|Sep-11-14|| ||perfidious: <Kite: I hope this isn't a bad question. After 22. Rad1, why didn't Fischer take e5 with his bishop?>|
The only bad question is that which is unasked.
You will find knowledgeable, forthright posters and players here if you continue to ask questions.
|Sep-29-14|| ||PaulLovric: Awesome game|
|Dec-09-14|| ||Plaskett: A game of that era.
But what a fight!!
Fischerīs desire to win reflected in his continuing the struggle by thinking for a combined 59 minutes over two consecutive moves...
|Feb-16-15|| ||ketchuplover: James Spader(Red Reddington) referenced this game on the last episode of The Blacklist. He said Fischer knew Spassky had no endgame which is why he sac'd the bishop|
|Feb-16-15|| ||Tactical Wizard: What Reddington also said was this game ended the Cold War. Maybe premature but about the only thing from the plot I could understand.|
|Feb-19-15|| ||Albion 1959: I am with Garech. for me this was the most interesting and hardest game of the match, as well as being the longest. A fascinating endgame in all aspects brought about by Fischer's determination to push the game beyond it's limits !!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 ·