Bobby Fischer vs Bent Larsen (1958) Petty Larseny

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing

Bobby Fischer vs Bent Larsen
"Petty Larseny" (game of the day Jan-02-2013)
Portoroz Interzonal (1958), Portoroz SLO, rd 8, Aug-16
Sicilian Defense: Dragon Variation. Yugoslav Attack Main Line (B77) · 1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Given 246 times; par: 45 [what's this?]

Annotations by Stockfish (Computer). [35436 more games annotated by Stockfish]

explore this opening	find similar games	13 more Fischer/Larsen games
sac: 22.Rxh5	PGN: download \| view \| print	Help: general \| java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

THIS IS A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE. [CLICK HERE] FOR ORIGINAL.

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 · Later Kibitzing>
Sep-02-17		Olsonist: It just seems that after 16. Bb3 that white is about 2 moves ahead. That LSB is a monster for the rest of the game, defending the WK and attacking the BK. It's technique (well, Fischer level technique) after black let's the LSB retreat. And that's what Fischer wrote in MSMG: "He Won't get a second chance to snap off the bishop! Now I felt the game was in the bag if I didn't botch it."

Sep-10-17		Saniyat24: Bent Larsen tried to play like a suicide bomber in an enemy war zone...the other side had too many artilleries...!

Mar-12-18		Mudphudder: Is this the game that inspired Fischer to use the expression "sac, sac, pry open the h-file" when talking about beating the Dragon sicilian?

Mar-14-18		dehanne: Almost none of the analysis Fischer gives in his book can be trusted.

Mar-14-18		Petrosianic: Yeah, that's why nobody ever took that book seriously.

Mar-15-18		Howard: This was the game, by the way, where Fischer indeed used the expression "pry open the h-file" and "sac sac".

Mar-15-18		perfidious: Believe Fischer's comment went: <sac, sac, mate!>

Jan-16-19		HeadCrunch: Fischer - my all time hero RIP Bobby :)

Feb-16-19		DansChessLounge: For analysis of this game check out the video here ---> https://youtu.be/9USecJe_wso

Jul-22-19		N.O.F. NAJDORF: Black could have exchanged bishops on moves 11, 12 or 13, thus preventing Fischer from using his king's bishop with decisive effect. It's incredible how often players made the same mistake against Fischer. I have a feeling Lasker would not have allowed him to get away with it.

Jul-22-19		beatgiant: <N.O.F. NAJDORF> I don't think you can fault Black's moves 11, 12 or 13 here. Those are all book moves. There are games where Black played Bxb3 but still came under a strong attack, like Ivkov vs H Westerinen, 1963. There are games where Black didn't play Bxb3 and was fine, like J Slizek vs V Sojka, 1968

Jul-07-20		dangerousidea: This is from the Stockfish notes: better is 16...Nd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.h4 h6 19.g4 Ne5 20.f4 Nc4 21.Qd3 = +0.39 (21 ply) So he had at least an improvement after 15...Rac8. However, Nxd5 would have still be preferable on 15.

Jul-08-20		harrylime: <<dehanne: Almost none of the analysis Fischer gives in his book can be trusted.>> Garbage. Says you with ya faithfull engine .

Jul-08-20		Petrosianic: <harrylol>: <Garbage. Says you with ya faithfull engine .> If he's using an engine, and you've never played a rated game in your life, you've just explained why he's probably right and you're probably wrong. Good work.

Jul-08-20		harrylime: <<Petrosianic: <harrylol>: <Garbage. Says you with ya faithfull engine .> If he's using an engine, and you've never played a rated game in your life, you've just explained why he's probably right and you're probably wrong. Good work.>> He's wrong. And you are a bore zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Jul-08-20		MissScarlett: <Hazz>, knock this foooker oooot.... We claim his NM title isn't worth the paper its written on....we throw down the gauntlet and challenge him to fight for your <cg.com> crown...we predict he will now vacate this page...we hope to be proved wrong...

Jul-08-20		harrylime: <<MissScarlett: <Hazz>, knock this foooker oooot.... We claim his NM title isn't worth the paper its written on....we throw down the gauntlet and challenge him to fight for your <cg.com> crown...we predict he will now vacate this page...we hope to be proved wrong...>> Gotta say could be a she ... We just do not know ... What we do know , by putin our Sherlock hatz on ,is that USER <<Petrosianic>> is a mega fan of the great Tigran, and as maybe a matter of course , is NOT a fan of ower Bobby.

Jul-08-20		Petrosianic: <harrylime: He's wrong. And you are a bore zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz> Duh, you silly. If he using engine, he right. And you more boring than me, silly person. Ha ha lol!

Jul-10-20		dangerousidea: The engine is not infallible, not at 21 ply. I am not implying that. Nd7 trades off the bishops, but also threatens to take out the bishop on b3 that does so much damage. Black can answer h4 with h6. Now if Larsen was refusing to take the bishop when it was on d5 because he was playing to win, it is unlikely he'd send his knight after it with Nd7. Still, Fischer claims inevitable victory after Rac8, and I don't think that is right. This is by no means an attempt to gainsay Fischer's accomplishment here. Of course the other really interesting issue concerns 22...Bxd4, involving Kasparov's correction of the MSMG analysis. It is natural to think that the result of a well-played chess game was inevitable sooner than it was, and this is where engines can actually help us think critically about chess. Annotators often overlook opportunities for the loser to avoid defeat. This includes both the winner of the game, and people who admire the winner's play. Look at the analysis of, for example, Capablanca-Tartakower New York 1924 as another example of this. But great players can be better appreciated if we are objective about their games.

Jul-10-20		dangerousidea: But if you want to claim that White was really winning after Nd7, I would be more than happy to look at some analysis.

Jul-10-20		Petrosianic: <dangerousidea> Forget Nd7. White is winning after 15...Rac8. It's insane for Black to allow White to keep the two Bishops. One of Larsen's big flaws was that he never seemed to grasp that a draw was better than a loss. Fischer absolutely understood that.

Jul-11-20		Petrosianic: But you see, if Black does play the obviously correct move, the game is already almost a draw. 15...Nxd5 16. Bxg7 Nc3+ 17. Bxc3 18. Qxc3 Qxc3 19. bxc3, and they could almost agree the draw here. click for larger view Fischer didn't like draws either, but he never played bad moves to make the game less drawish.

Apr-18-22		Sally Simpson: Just 6 moves into replaying this game and I have written a note after move 6 to remind myself to check C.G. to see if it still loses. :) Fischer wrote: click for larger view '6...Ng4 still loses to 7Bb5+' and even in 2012 it was still losing. Sahiti P Lakshmi vs P Lewicki, 2012 It's also the first time I saw the note ''pry open the h-file, sac, sac...mate' it's now a chess writer's cliché. (after move move 16 Bb3)

Apr-18-22		pazzed paun: Larsen? Never stood a chance against Fischer! Larsen a braggart and a bore with a negative score against every world champion he played

Apr-18-22		RookFile: If Fischer had the black pieces himself he would have played 15...Nxd5 as fast as humanly possible.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 8)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.