|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-12-09
 | | keypusher: <walker: Fischer was only 18 y.o. then... Geller never forgot the humiliation...
"It was clear to me that the vulnerable point of the American Grandmaster was in double-edged, hanging, irrational positions, where he often failed to find a win even in a won position." --- Geller (on Fischer)>
Walker, it seems to be news to you, but what Geller said was pretty much a standard criticism of Fischer. Doesn't mean it was correct. I think by 1971 it was not correct. But it was a widely held view. |
|
| May-12-09 | | AnalyzeThis: It's all relative, of course. For example, you could say, when Fischer played Tal at an early age, that he got outslugged in tactical situations. The problem is, Tal did that to everyone. |
|
| May-12-09 | | WhiteRook48: Geller has a plus score against Fischer. WHY did Fischer become champion instead? |
|
| May-12-09 | | Tessie Tura: <Geller has a plus score against Fischer. WHY did Fischer become champion instead?> <WhiteRook48> I’m not sure if you meant your question to be a facetious one, but a head to head score is not a particularly good way to determine a player’s true ranking. To take an example from tennis, Richard Krajicek had a plus score against Pete Sampras, but it didn’t mean he was going to win a bunch of slams. His style matched up well against Pete’s, as Geller’s ability to create ambiguous positions helped him against Fischer, even in later years when Fischer was definitely the better player. |
|
| May-12-09 | | AnalyzeThis: There is another factor involved. In some of the games, Geller would actually play Fischer's defensive system against him. If you're Fischer, you've got a problem. What are you supposed to do? Show the world how to beat your own defense, when you know better than anybody? So, Fischer would choose the 2nd option, and try to outplay Geller. |
|
| May-13-09 | | Eyal: <There is another factor involved. In some of the games, Geller would actually play Fischer's defensive system against him. If you're Fischer, you've got a problem. What are you supposed to do? Show the world how to beat your own defense, when you know better than anybody?> I think this is relevant to only one game between the two: Fischer vs Geller, 1967, where Geller played Fischer's "own" Poisoned Pawn against him (and that after Fischer surprised by playing 6.Bg5 against the Najdorf, instead of his standard Bc4, for the only time in his career - Repertoire Explorer: Robert James Fischer (white)). Maybe Fischer held something back and maybe not, but at any rate his opening play doesn't seem "handicapped" at all - he got a fine position out of the opening, and his loss resulted from massive middlegame complications. |
|
| May-30-09 | | Eyal: Here's an insane sideline: Fischer says in his notes to the game that he rejected 14.Nxc6 because of 14...h5; Kasparov claims that it's actually very good for White and gives 15.Nc4 hxg4 16.Nxd6+ cxd6 17.Re1+ Kf8 18.hxg4 Re8 19.Rxe8+ Kxe8, and now several moves lead to a clear advantage, such as 20.Qe2+, 20.f3, and even 20.Nb8 - the latter leading leading to the following mate if Black attempts to take advantage of the h-file: 20...Qh4 21.Qa4+ Kf8 22.Nd7+ Ke7 23.Bg5+!! (diversion + blocking) Qxg5 24.Re1+ Kd8 25.Re8+!! (decoy) Kxe8 26.Nf6+ Ke7 27.Qd7+ Kxf6 28.Qxd6#
click for larger view |
|
May-30-09
 | | Chessical: <Eyal> In Kasparov's line: <14.Nxc6> h5 15.Nc4 hxg4 16.Nxd6+ cxd6 17.Re1+ Kf8 <18.h4!?> seems strong instead of taking the pawn: (a).<18...Nh6> 19.Bg5 Qf3 20.Qxd6+ Kg8 21.Re3 Nf5 22.Rxf3 Nxd6 23.Ne7+ Kh7 24.Rf4 or,
(b).<18...Rxh4> 19.Bg5 Qxg5 20.Qxd6+ Ne7 21.Nxe7 Bc2 22.Ng6+ Kg8 23.Nxh4 Qxh4 24.Re7 |
|
| May-30-09 | | vonKrolock: Nice as chamber analysis, my friends, but in OTB conditions it would very hard even for a top-GM to extricate those lines (proof enough - that both Fischer and Kasparov can be questioned here...) And Geller, would he really play like expected <14.♘xc6> h5 15.♘c4 hxg4 16.♘xd6+ cxd6 17.♖e1+ ♔f8> ?! My <"little coach"> here is suggesting , in case of 14.♘xc6, the elegant gambit 14...♘e7, with compensation for the Pawn in all lines |
|
| May-30-09 | | Eyal: well, my whole point was the "insanity" of that line (and mating pattern)... and Kasparov's point is to illutrate that "objectively" White shouldn't have been afraid of 14...h5 after 14.Nxc6 as Fischer claimed. He does mention 14...Ne7(!), btw, as Black's most tenacious defence in such a case, though it seems that he's just left with a pawn down with no real compensation: 15.Nxe7 Bxe7 16.Nf3 O-O (16...Rd8 17.Qa4+; or 16...Be4 17.Nd4 c5 18.Qe2) 17.Bg5 Qd6 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Re1 Qf6 20.Ne5 Rfd8 21.Qf3, and White can set about converting the extra pawn. At any rate, the move Fischer actually played, 14.Nxg6, was perfectly good - in practical terms probably better. |
|
| Oct-22-09 | | AESTRADAR: 8.g2-g4! a double edge answer because their king fly weakens |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | parisattack: I read somewhere long ago it was this game that gave Fischer the idea to explore what was then the Barendreght variation of the Exchange Ruy Lopez - which he popularized in 1966. He said he realized the pin with ...Bg4 after 0-0 was not as strong as most analysts had thought. I probably read it in the 1960s. Anyone perhaps know the quote/source? |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | AnalyzeThis: g4 is often a good move in the Four Knights game when black incorrectly brings the bishop to g4, then retreats it to h5. I'm sure that Fischer was well aware of these similar positions. |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | parisattack: At the time (early 1960s) 5. 0-0 wasn't considered a particularly strong reply to the Modern Seinitz...although I am surprised Geller did not play the ultra-sharp 6. ...h5 Shakmatnyi Byulletin did a big article trying to bust the Barendregt after Fischer's success with it in 1966. That may have been where I got the reference... |
|
| Oct-27-09 | | Eyal: <parisattack: At the time (early 1960s) 5. 0-0 wasn't considered a particularly strong reply to the Modern Seinitz...although I am surprised Geller did not play the ultra-sharp 6. ...h5> "As a result of this game 6...h5 became fashionable" (Fischer in MSMG). As surprising as it may sound, according to the databases 6.h3 was a novelty or near-novelty at the time - the usual move was 6.c3, after which 6...Qf6 is good. So it's not even certain whether 6...h5 was an "established" option for Geller, so to speak, and it's quite difficult to play a move like that otb without prior home preparation. A move later, when playing 7...Qf6 (rather than Nf6), it looks like he wanted to do something "aggressive" anyway, but failed to appreciate the difference made by the insertion of h3. |
|
| Oct-30-09 | | Aspirador: <notyetagm> That variation is given in MSMG and goes: 12.Qa4 Ne7 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Re1 e4 15.Nxe4 Qxf3 16.Qxc6+ Nxc6 17.Nf6+ Kd8 18.Re8# Fischer also remarks that 12...Kd7! would have been better for black in this case. |
|
| Sep-22-10 | | sevenseaman: The difference between 20. Qb4+ and 22. Qb4+ must be clearly seen. The latter succeeds. |
|
| May-16-11 | | Myndex: I don't understand Geller's 15...Kf8
Why not 15... Ne7 to block instead, and possibly castle later?? |
|
| Aug-29-12 | | TheFocus: This is game 29 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>. |
|
Jul-26-13
 | | kingscrusher: I have video annotated this game here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SFb... |
|
| Jan-03-14 | | PJs Studio: 20.Qb7! Chasing the rook to a square where it can be captured after Qb4+ & Qxe7+. Instructive. |
|
| Jan-14-14 | | SeanAzarin: Fischer on the game:
[on Geller's 7th move] "Geller looked quite happy after his novelty." [on Geller's 14th move] "Geller took a half hour on this recapture and stopped looking happy." [on Geller's 18th move] "Loses outright."
[on why Geller resigned after Fischer's 22nd move] "He must now lose both a Knight *and* a Rook." |
|
May-05-14
 | | AylerKupp: You live and learn. If Geller wanted to play ...Qf6 then his 6...Bh5 is a mistake, as it usually is in positions of this type when White has 0-0 and Black has not. Instead 6...h5 is better, as it usually is in positions of this type and as indicated in <kingscrusher>'s video, since 7.hxg4 hxg4 either regains the piece or loses immediately after 8.Nh2 (or 8.Ne1) 8...Qh4. White's relative best is probably 8.g3 which after 8...gxf3 9.Qxf3 Nf6 is roughly equal. FWIW, Houdini 1.5a evaluates the resulting position at [-0.09], d=26; Komodo 6 evaluates the resulting position at [+0.01], d=23; and Critter 1.6a evaluates the resulting position at [-0.13], d=26. But 6...h5 was not well known in 1961, with the earliest games that I was able to find also in 1961; Z Gabrys vs Sliwa, 1961 (which continued 7.c4 Qf6), 1-0 and Ustinov vs. Klovans, Batumi 1961 (not in Opening Explorer), 0-1. In this latter both players were rated 2300+ and, so Geller might have been familiar with this game/idea, depending on when it was played (the Bled tournament was held in Sep-1961). If 7...Qf6 was the result of home analysis by Geller then I wonder if he looked at 6...h5 followed by 7...Qf6 and, if he did, how thoroughly. 6...Bh5 and 7...Qf6 was not played very often after this loss by Geller; I was only able to find 5 additional games which continued 6...Bh5 7.c3 Qf6, with the resulting scores of +4-0=1, with the latest game played in 2001. In contrast I found 19 games with 6...h5 7.c3 Qf6 with the resulting scores of +5-9=5 and a Black winning percentage of 60.5%. Regardless, Geller was probably lost after 13.Nxe5, the 2 bishops notwithstanding, because of his wrecked pawn position, poor development, and highly vulnerable king. Fischer's 20.Qb7 was masterful as I, and I suspect many others, would have opted for 20.Qb4+ which wins a piece and stops Black's "attack" after 20...Ne7 [] 21.Qxe7+ Kg8 22.h4. But 20.Qb7 forces Black's rook out into the open where, as <PJs Studio> pointed out, it can be captured after 22.Qb4+. Why win only a knight when you can win both a knight and a rook? |
|
| May-05-14 | | RookFile: Fischer remarked that Geller appeared happy for much of this game. |
|
| May-16-14 | | Howard: Yes, up until roughly the 12th move. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 