|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| 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. See http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches.... 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. |
|
Apr-08-06
 | | twinlark: Welcome <Hawks>, and I hope your time here will be a rewarding one. Hang in there, and that insight will come as you improve. You don't really need to understand chess in any depth to follow some of the raves around this place. The biggest one is: <who is the real World Champion? It's Topalov. No it's not, it's Kramnik. >... But if you want help with anything chess wise, go to Kibitzers Cafe and ask. The corporate knowledge that amongst the kibitzers there is extensive. |
|
| May-24-06 | | Gameoverziggy: I think that Fischer in his time was head and shoulders above everyone else much more so in his time than Kasparov/Karpov were in their time |
|
| Nov-10-06 | | JohnNash: <Actualy after move 27, Tal wanted to sacrifice more pieces.> I second that, I believe I saw a quote by Tal saying that first he thinks about how to sac his queen, then bishops, knights, rooks then pawns. :) |
|
| Jan-03-07 | | ianD: Tal was 12 yoa and Zilber 15 yoa when this game was played. |
|
| Sep-18-07 | | MindCtrol9: Everytime I review any of Tal games,it gives me an unbelievable inspiration.I felt his physical death,and I say phisical because he lives forever in the minds of player like me.Tal,you will always be around your fans and teaching chess for unlimited generations to come.This writing is from Jose Octavio Salazar Batista,from Holguin,Cuba,who is 100% honest in every aspect of his life. |
|
| Nov-28-07 | | Judah: Here's what Tal wrote about this particular 'sacrifice' in the Life and Games of Mikhail Tal: <I am absolutely sure that my opponent's move came as a surprise to me, and so, much as I would like to, I cannot place this game in the category of 'intuitive' or 'Tal' sacrifices.<12... -B5
13. -N1 PxB>
The situation has changed 'somewhat'. Black has an extra bishop, for which I now do not see any compensation at all. On the other hand, it was not difficult to detect that the black king's pawn cover had been weakened. White continues as if nothing has happened. ...> |
|
| Jul-01-08 | | Jabroni: "Gameoverziggy: I think that Fischer in his time was head and shoulders above everyone else much more so in his time than Kasparov/Karpov were in their time"
not really, the only player fischer feared was tal, so how was fischer stronger? Tal brought attacking to a new level with inspirational sacrifices to blow your mind to a whole new level |
|
| Jan-08-09 | | chocobonbon: I like Mate in five: 27. e6+, xf7; 28.g7+, xe6; 29. h6+,  g6; 30.xg6, f6 and (rather than capturing the ), 31.d7#. Or alternatively: 27. f8()+, xf8; 28.e6+,f7; 29.g7+, xe6; 30.h6+, f6; 31.d7# Once Tal cooks up one of these positions, you can play it a lot of ways but I prefer Mate in 5 moves to 8 moves. Did I miss something? It wouldn't be the first time (or last). |
|
| Jan-09-09 | | ILikeFruits: chocobonbon...
do you...
play at...
yahoo... |
|
| Jan-12-09 | | chocobonbon: <Ilikefruits> I played online briefly a few years ago but it wasn't Yahoo. Don't recall my handle but it wasn't Chocobonbon although equally silly. On the site you chose the desired level of competition. I caught a few ringers and rang off. Then I discovered Chessgames.com & have been happy ever since. LOL |
|
Oct-16-10
 | | sevenseaman: White himself was on the brink. But Tal expertly side-steps the interference from the Black Q and B, the only two opposing forces of consequence in the end game. |
|
| Nov-03-10 | | checkmateyourmove: 13 years old and playing nasty already. Tal is offically my favorite now...lol.. to bad illness, slowed him down at certain periods, a loss for chess fans no doubt. |
|
| Nov-02-11 | | Mysteriod: Fischer was a great player no doubt, but he quit chess when he was at the top so that everyone would assume he was the best. For instance when Fischer was to play a challenge (Karpov) he set rules which made it almost impossible for the challenger to win fairly, and when FIDE declined he forfeited his title. In my opinion that was a move of a coward, not the best player of all time. |
|
| Jun-27-12 | | blazerdoodle: Not true. Steinitz, Kasparov and Karpov played under the same rules Fischer said he'd play under (albeit different number of games). He said he'd play under those rules that Karpov would reject with Fischer but accept with Kasparov a few years later. Or do I got it wrong? |
|
| Jun-28-12 | | ughaibu: You've got it wrong. |
|
| Jun-29-12 | | blazerdoodle: Chessgames.com has the info and this is where I got it from. Fischer rejected a number of conditions for a number of reasons, and finally accepted certain rules - rules he said he'd actually play under, only to have them turn around and let him have it for a change. But it's true that he actually agreed to a certain format, which is the same format Kasparov - Karpov played under in 83 (84?), albeit a different number of games. The info is so easy to find on here. Personally, I think those rules for the 84 match were the best, and Karpov had only to win one single game, but Campomane's pulled the plug because the communists baby Karpov appeared peaked. That's how I've read it on chessgames.com, on their official site, not some blog. I'd like to hear if they've changed it. |
|
| Jun-29-12 | | I play the Fred: Again, the rules aren't the same if the wins requirement is different. Fischer himself confirmed this when he refused to play the first-to-six format. |
|
| Jun-29-12 | | Petrosianic: <I think that Fischer in his time was head and shoulders above everyone else much more so in his time than Kasparov/Karpov were in their time> Yeah, because they weren't head and shoulders above each other. Kasparov faced Karpov while Fischer didn't. But if you take Karpov out of the equation, have a look at the 1990 Rating List. When Fischer retired, he had a 120 point edge over the next player. In 1990, Kasparov had that exact same 120 point edge over everyone except Karpov. And Kasparov's edge over Karpov was a little more than Fischer '72's edge over Karpov '78 (70 points). So yeah, Kasparov achieved about the same level of dominance that Fischer had in 70-72, but maintained it for 20 years. |
|
| Jun-29-12 | | Petrosianic: <I play the Fred>: <Again, the rules aren't the same if the wins requirement is different. Fischer himself confirmed this when he refused to play the first-to-six format.> You're basically right. The FORMAT is the same, but the actual rules are different. There are four basic formats: Wins Required, Points Required, Wins and Points Required, and Wins OR Points Required. Fischer's original aims were to replace the Points Required Format with the old Wins Required format, and to abolish the champion's advantage. He succeeded in the first objective, but then changed his mind and decided he wanted to keep the champion's advantage after all. The problem is there was no way to do that in a Wins Required Format without taking the unprecedented step of forcing the challenger to win by 2 points. There were actually a few old matches played under that format (like Tchigorin-Gunsberg, I think), but not title matches. Most people, including most people in the West thought that was unfair, so it didn't happen. But it's doubtful Fischer would have played even if he'd gotten it. He agreed to play Gligoric and several others under that format and then walked out on each match at the last minute. It wasn't until 1992 that he could bring himself to play anyone again. |
|
| Jun-29-12 | | Akshay999: 11. h3 would have been a great move.. wonder why TAL didnt play it |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
