|Jan-27-05|| ||alexmagnus: 9...Nxh2?? Unbelievable that Spassky overlookes the 10.Qh5, attacking this knight and threating...Scholar´s Mate! |
|Jan-28-05|| ||Champ Supernova: 9. ...Nh2 10. Qh5 ?? Bg4+ wins the queen.
When a former world champion plays a move that seems to lose easily, you should probably look deeper into the position. It is far more likely that you are overlooking something.
|Jan-28-05|| ||RisingChamp: In case you didnt notice,Supernova Bg4 is not a check and fails spectacularly to Qxf7# checkmate |
|Jan-28-05|| ||The beginner: Why did black play .. 13 c6.
For a beginner like me a move like
13.. Nf3, or 13 .. Nc2 seems to make much more sense as it would gain material. And as i see it also black's position would be better. After 13. c6 his queen is defending both d4, and d6, and furthemore his bishop on g4 is also undefended. To me it looks like he loses this game because none of his pieces are working together.
|Jan-29-05|| ||RisingChamp: Beginner Nf3?? Rxf3 simply tosses away a Knight for nothing.and Nc2? Kd2 Nxa1 Bg5 leaves black completely busted |
|Jan-31-05|| ||The beginner: I see how ..13Nc2 is a wrong move now.
But what about 13..Nf3+ 14 Rxf3-Bxf3 And white won a rook, for a knight ?
|Jan-31-05|| ||beatgiant: <The beginner>
I don't see how Black's busted after 13...Nxc2+ 14. Kd2 Nxa1 15. Bg5 Qxf1. I think the problem with 13...Nxc2+ is 14. Qxc2.
13...Nf3+ 14. Rxf3 Bxf3 15. Kd2 and White is still ahead (two minor pieces for rook and pawn) but not as much as the game.
|Aug-29-08|| ||GrahamClayton: Apparently White's 6.Na4?? was a losing move, provided Spassky played 9...Nge5, with the threat of 10...Bg4.|
|Sep-02-08|| ||GrahamClayton: Source: Andy Soltis "Chess Lists", 2nd edition, McFarland Publishing, 2002|
|Dec-22-08|| ||WhiteRook48: So now we know how to beat Spassky- just play King to d2 and he'll resign... NOT!|
|Jan-10-09|| ||WhiteRook48: one book says he resigned right after 10. Qh5. Evidently he didn't.|
|Feb-07-09|| ||WhiteRook48: really a wrecked game for Spassky|
|Mar-27-09|| ||WhiteRook48: evidently Spassky couldn't play well after his loss to Fischer|
|May-05-09|| ||Honza Cervenka: <evidently Spassky couldn't play well after his loss to Fischer> After his loss to Fischer Spassky won one of strongest SU championships ever played (Moscow 1973) and he was in top ten for the most part of 1970s and 1980s. But he was able to have a bad day sometimes making quite unbelievable mistakes too during all his career and this was just one of them.|
|May-05-09|| ||whiteshark: Spassky said afterwards: "For 26 years of my chess career I've never blundered a piece away." (Seit 26 Jahren meiner Schachkarriere habe ich noch keine Figur eingestellt.)|
GM Tournament in Munich from 25.02. - 15.03.1979
Spassky, Andersson, Balschow and Hübner shared 1-4th place with 8.5/15 points.
Game played at round 9.
* Karpow left the tournament after 5 rounds as his father died.
|May-05-09|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Spassky said afterwards: "For 26 years of my chess career I've never blundered a piece away."> Well, while technically that was not "blundering a piece away", 19...Nd7?? from Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 could be very close to it.|
|May-02-11|| ||kbob: consider the irony of contrast to Larsen vs Spassky, 1970 where, with a similar deployment of his kingside pieces, Spassky produced a sublime sacrifice utterly unforeseeable by Larsen at
the height of his powers.|
|Jan-19-16|| ||Martin Riggs: I call this 1: "Spassky: That wasn't at all lieb of you!"|
Lieb, in German, means kind/nice. :D