|May-20-04|| ||Archerforthelord: Can this really be the great bobby fischer? are the names perhaps wrong? |
|May-20-04|| ||iron maiden: <Archerforthelord> I see no reason why it couldn't be, since Fischer was quite an active player in American tournaments by 1956. |
|May-21-04|| ||Archerforthelord: I'm talking about his performance, this is the same kid that sacked his queen against a grandmaster in the game of the century |
|May-21-04|| ||xqdashi: Archerforthelord, I will check my book of Bobby Fischer's games (it supposedly contains all 1000+ games throughout his career) to verify. |
However, I also remember reading in one of the books about Fischer that he himself claims he was about B strength when he started tournaments in 55, and says he rose quickly to master strength in a year and a half or so.
This game was played May '56. The game you're talking about (game of the century) was played Oct. '56 about 5 months time difference. Given his rapid strength increase from 55 to early 57, 5 months is a "long" time in his development. So I think it is possible that this is actually the great bobby fischer.
|May-21-04|| ||Lawrence: This game is in the 3 volume "Bobby Fischer" (Ediciones Eseuve), 795 games in all, "annotated" by Smyslov, Tahl, Yudasin, and Tukmakov. Call those annotations? Not a word of text, just variations. My little 8 year old grandson Junior could do a better job than that. |
|May-21-04|| ||Lawrence: It's also in Lou Hays's "Bobby Fischer."
The 1956 US Amateur was a 6 round swiss with 88 players. Bobby got 4 points, which ranked him in the "11th to 23rd" group. It was a 3-way tie for the winners, a 3-way tie for players ranked 4 to 6, and a 4-way tie for players ranked 7 to 10. Nash was in the "7th to 10th place" group.
Bobby just hadn't got good yet.
|May-21-04|| ||Lawrence: He was the same age as Magnus Carlsen is now. |
|May-21-04|| ||muppyman: The book "The games of Robert J. Fischer" says "the score for this game is not available" :) Bobby played Nash again that year in the Eastern States open, and won a 55 move Sicilian Najdorf. |
|May-21-04|| ||iron maiden: <this is the same kid that sacked his queen against a grandmaster in the game of the century> Yeah, but in the remaining games of the tournament in which that game was played he scored just one further victory, plus four draws and four losses. He was a strong player in 1956, but extremely inconsistent. |
|May-21-04|| ||iron maiden: Oh, BTW, Byrne wasn't a grandmaster, he was only an IM. |
|May-21-04|| ||xqdashi: Ok, my book was the Hays' book, so I guess Lawrence already beat me to it. |
|Apr-13-05|| ||Rocafella: Bit of overprotection here |
|Jul-22-06|| ||ganstaman: From the kibitzer's cafe: <TheNextBobbyFischer: sorry to interrupt but can anyone explaing to me the bishop sacrifice that Bobby fischer played here on move 23? Why did he take the pawn after 22. ...g5 ??>|
Hmmm, interesting I think. It looks to me to be an intuitive sac that one doesn't actually calculate all the way out. Ignoring if it actually works or not, let's look at the position. Taking the pawn leaves the g-file semi-open, which is where the black king is stuck. Also note the white pawn on h6, which does a lot to the g7 square.
As you play out the moves after 23, you see Fischer trying to create room to get an attack going against the dangerously placed black king. Just because he actually got nothing going doesn't mean the sac didn't look good. Also look at the alternatives, which seem to lose the e5 pawn. So he either loses a pawn and remains on the defensive in a cramped position, or he loses a bishop for a pawn and creates some chances for himself by opening things up. Maybe it should have waited for better calculations, but overall it doesn't seem like a terrible choice to me.
|Jul-22-06|| ||ganstaman: Also, I think now that if he made some other 23rd move, black would follow up with 23...Nxe5, which I think wins the f3 knight. I haven't fully looked at this, but that may actually be a better explaination if true (that is, better to win a pawn and lose the bishop than lose a pawn and lose the knight).|
|Jan-10-07|| ||pcvandelay: hey guys, im new--whats the "game of the century" that Archforthelord is talking about?|
|Jan-10-07|| ||AugustAle: Hey pcv, Welcome. Donald Byrne vs Robert James Fischer aka "The Game of the Century" was also featured as the game of the day Oct-17-06, Rosenwald Memorial 1956. In Reykjavik, 1972, Fischer became the 11th World Chess Champion Chess Champion defeating Boris Spassky in what is often referred to as "The Match of the Century."
That's so last Century.
The game of THIS Century has to be Deep Fritz vs Vladimir Kramnik
Kramnik vs Deep Fritz 2006 · Queen's Gambit Accepted (D20) · 1-0
What a joke !! O.K. see ya. Search the games and have fun. B
|Jan-10-07|| ||micartouse: Hi <pcvandelay>. D Byrne vs Fischer, 1956 is the link to the "Game of the Century".|
Or you can just go to Fischer's page by clicking on his name and see a list of his best games (according to link popularity). Fischer had a lot of great games to play through and marvel over.