< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Aug-03-03|| ||xu fei: Is 12.Bf6 a blunder or is Tal a sacrificial genius? Looks like some questionable play from black let Tal off the hook. |
|Aug-03-03|| ||Kenkaku: I think Tal got what he wanted, the opening up of black's kingside. Tal would be the first to admit that his sacrifices aren't always sound. |
|Aug-03-03|| ||PVS: <Tal would be the first to admit that his sacrifices aren't always sound.>|
Yes, Tal said that when he saw a sacrifice he would play it unless he saw that it would lose, that is, unlike most players including even Larsen, he would play an unclear sacrifice. I suppose he trusted his own talent to play in a highly tactical position with limited time.
|Aug-04-03|| ||MoonlitKnight: <is Tal a sacrificial genius?> Yes, he was indeed. |
|Oct-11-03|| ||Helloween: Tal said in his annotation of this game that He didn't expect the Qf4+ response and had blundered the piece. He also regrets 11.0-0-0, calling it ??, prefering 11.h3 which will trap the Black Queen. |
|Oct-12-03|| ||drukenknight: walking the K out looks like a bad idea what about 21...Rc8 w/ idea of Bxf2? |
|Oct-12-03|| ||DWINS: If 21... Rc8
22. hxg6 Bxf2
23. Nf6+ forces mate
|Dec-23-03|| ||MoonlitKnight: Tal admits in his book that 12.Bf6 was a blunder. Also, he puts two question marks behind 11.0-0-0 because he could have trapped the black queen with h3. But Tal was only twelve when he played this game and Zilber was a big boy at 15. |
|Feb-17-04|| ||Hidden Skillz: tru..11.h3 Qf5 12.g4 Qg6 13.Nh4..n queen gone..but he could save himself after 12.g4 Bxf2..n queen survives |
|Aug-29-04|| ||Tal ty forthememores: Tal invented the book on sacrificing in Chess. Actually, I should have convinced him to do it. ;-) |
|Sep-29-04|| ||Bigbluedog: Tal a sacrificial genius? Please need you ask.As a chess genius only Fischer ranks above him. Capablanca rates number three spot when compared to those two.
thedoggieman Bigbluedog |
|Sep-29-04|| ||OneArmedScissor: I would say Fischer is an all around genius, while Tal is a tactical genius and Capablanca more of a positional genius. |
|Sep-29-04|| ||Bigbluedog: Yes Scissor I agree that is a fairly good analogy. Naturally I would add that Fischer is a genius's genius.There can be only one greatest of the greats, Fischer holds that title.
thedoggieman Bigbluedog |
|Dec-06-04|| ||HOTDOG: 11.h3(or 12.h3)immediately wins. |
|Dec-14-04|| ||Dedalus: No Bigbluedog. Fischer doesn´´t hold the title of greatest of the greatest.
He isn´´t even close.
The title belongs to Morphy - who thought in new categories, taking the game to unknown heights.
Fischer himself aknowledges Morphy as the greatest.
If achievments are to be measured F is even further from the title.
Kasparov is the greatest chess player of all time, looking at what certain players have actually accomplished.
If one doesn´´t agree and wants to name Lasker, then that is OK (there is a case so to speak).
And Steinitz, Capablanca, Aljechin, Karpov all have reason to be regarded as "greater" than Fischer.
However, I suspect your opinion really is about what you consider pure strength - that with "greatest" you mean strongest. If so, then yes, Fischer is a top 3 candidate in my opinion as well.
|Dec-14-04|| ||flamboyant: isnt Tal that said something like :
there is 2 kind of sacrifice: the correct ones , and mines
|Feb-01-05|| ||Abaduba: It's misleading for anyone to say "such-and-such was the best" without an "IMHO" next to it. I think most people agree that Kasparov was, and is, the greatest player in history. But that opinion is not unanimous. One can argue about who had the most talent (the names I hear most often are Fischer, Morphy, and Capablanca, plus Kasparov), which is a much more open question. I think we can all agree, however, that if we were to have a tournament between all the greats at their prime, the safe money is squarely on Kasparov.
As for Fischer, most of his reputation is built on the sole championship he played (albeit brilliantly and dominantly), several brilliancies, and the "what might have beens". He and Tal were both champs for only a short time and the circumstances of their lives kept them from achieving as much as Lasker or Kasparov. |
|Mar-04-05|| ||flamboyant: i have tal's book, i think he was 12 at the moment of this game |
|Mar-04-05|| ||Kingdumb: To argue who is the greatest chess player is pointless. As with any other sport, such as baseball, comparing players of different eras is impossible for 2 reasons.|
1) They didn't have the opportunity to play each other. Kasparov wasn't even born yet when some of the "greats" were playing. How would he have faired against them? There is no true way to tell.
2) The game has evolved over the years. With the advent of computers it is possible to do things as far as improving your game and looking into positions that was much harder back in the old days. Does this give the newer players an advantage or in actuality does it limit their imaginations as more thought would have been required even as recently as 1975.
Peronally I would love to have seen a game between Capablanca and Fisher but my goodness the man was born in 1888. I wonder if Fisher's parents were even born yet.
This is why it is pointless to do comparisons. Was Babe Ruth greater than Barry Bonds? Who knows? How would Ruth have played today against better conditioned players?
Just something to think about when getting into debates about who is the "greatest" chess player.
|Jun-02-05|| ||SnoopDogg: <How would Ruth have played today against better conditioned players>|
Do you mean hooked on steriods?
|Oct-20-05|| ||RonB52734: The move 5...Nc6 makes an interesting test for the chess computer. Chessmaster 9000, given 4 minutes to think about it, doesn't bat an eye at the move, seeing virtually no deterioration in black's score (a white advantage of about 1/2 a pawn, which presumably is nothing more than white's opening advantage). But our favorite database, Opening Explorer, sees it as winless for black, with 9 white wins and a draw to show for 10 attempts of this move by black.|
Surely its not a blunder; after the ensuing series of moves, and once the forward minor pieces are protected for both sides and both have castled (i.e., right before Tal's bishop sac on move 12), white has gained a development edge of 1 tempo but has paid his center pawns for it.
Can anyone comment on why 5...Nc6 proves to be a loser?
|Oct-20-05|| ||RonB52734: The bishop sacrifice does seem to be rash, since the move that Tal says he didn't anticipate, 12...Qf4+, prevents what would otherwise be a nice mating net involving the white knight going to f6 and the white queen going to h7. |
I think the best way to describe the remainder of the game is a pawn advance and a series of checks, often shedding white pieces along the way, that blew open black's kingside for the white queen and rook.
After 25...Qxf2, mate is inevitable.
|Nov-23-05|| ||Chopin: Tal was just a genius! He had so much vision over the board.|
|Mar-05-06|| ||DeepBlade: Actualy after move 27, Tal wanted to sacrifice more pieces.|
|Apr-07-06|| ||Hawks: I really admire the insight you all posess. It's difficult for a beginner(74)like me to follow the logic.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·