|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 33 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-04-09 | | Riverbeast: <Still seems not quite beyond all doubt>. Why would Paul Nemenyi pay child support for Bobby, and Regina sign a paper renouncing claims to Nemenyi's estate, if Bobby wasn't his kid? Also the documents from the probate court, indicating Nemenyi was the father? How much more proof is necessary? |
|
| Jun-04-09 | | Brown: For beyond all doubt, more, like DNA. Merely an issue of probabilities. Likely, Nemenyi is the father. The evidence is compelling, but iron-clad? No. |
|
Jun-04-09
 | | chancho: Couldn't have said it better <Riverbeast>. |
|
| Jun-05-09 | | chillowack: Strictly speaking, only Brown is upholding the gold-standard of proof here. The only way you can really say "beyond all doubt" is by testing the DNA--which, by the way, might be possible to do (if, for instance, a strand of Nemenyi's hair could be exhumed or something). That said: based on everything that has been presented, I would now say the case for Nemenyi as father is very strong, and I thank everyone who has shared here. I doubt the part about Fischer admitting his father was Jewish. He would never have done such a thing, he was a rabid anti-Semite and would much more likely have clung to the facade of the German father. |
|
| Jun-19-09 | | Champ Chess Player: The sacrifice 38. Rxf6 was very smart! |
|
Jul-20-09
 | | LIFE Master AJ: All things about Fischer's (later) behavior aside ... This is a wonderful game.
If you go to this web page, http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-...; you will find this game annotated. Additionally, there is a free CB file that you can download. I spent about 2 weeks updating this game and fixing up an old web page. |
|
| Aug-30-09 | | tentsewang: Fischer was a true chess genius like Morphy but his attitude and his lunatic behavior was just unacceptable. In this Game after Spassky resigned, the game could has went like this: 41.Qf4 Kg8 42. Qxh6 Rh7 43.Rg6+ Qxg6 44. Qxg6+ Rhg7 45. e7+ Kh8 46.e8=Q+ Rg8 47.Qexg8# 1-0 |
|
Sep-04-09
| | LIFE Master AJ: I gave some similar analysis on my web page ... |
|
| Sep-05-09 | | WhiteRook48: Fischer played the KID once as white |
|
Sep-07-09
| | LIFE Master AJ: <Sep-05-09 <WhiteRook48>: "Fischer played the KID once as white"> <WR48> MORE than once ... he often used it when he thought he would be facing a French OR the Caro-Kann. Check out, "My Sixty Memorable Games," by Bobby Fischer. |
|
| Nov-04-09 | | KraziPawn: LIFE Master/WR48?, don't you mean that Fischer played the KIA when he thought he would face the French or the Caro-(Scam)?.
Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the KID never sees the light of day vs the French, or the Caro-Kann.
Then again, I haven't studied the game since 96', I have little idea what's going on in today's chess world. |
|
| Nov-26-09 | | dTal: I read many comments about people not understanding why this was such a great game. Well upto this game Spassky had never lost in a Tartakower, and Fischer had never ever played a queens gambit. The line Spassky went for had been thought to be quite drawish, with many tournament games proving this to be the case. Fischer played a novelty, 14. Bb5! and suddenly Black's position looked unplayable. It prevents Black's N from developing to d7, because W would exchange and his own N would have free reign, which with the hanging pawns makes life unpleasant for Black. That is why Spassky played a6, but this weakens his Q side, and his subsequent Rook maneuver to remove the pin and chase W's B away tied his pieces up in knots. Afterwards Fischer plays in impeccable style. This was Fischer's genius, he could turn his incredible mind to a position he had never played before, and come up with a novelty that had not been seen by seasoned practioners of the line. The position before that was actually well known by Geller, Spassky's second, but they would probably have never discussed it, as it was unthinkable that Fischer would play the Queen's gambit. Fischer's judgement was so fine, and his positional play so classically beautuful in this game, that Spassky applauded before offering his hand. Fischer says he had to quickly leave in order not to be affected by his opponents generosity of spirit. (All this from Gligoric's account of the match) |
|
Nov-26-09
 | | penarol: Fischer´s play is superb in this game. Reminds me of the best Capablanca. |
|
Nov-26-09
| | OBIT: <dTal>Actually, 14. Bb5 was not a novelty in this game, as this move and all the moves leading up to it had been played in Furman vs Geller, 1970. Furman went on to win the game. Interestingly, Geller, the loser to Furman and Spassky's second for the match, had suggested 14. Qb7 as an improvement, an idea that Spassky evidently forgot. Geller tested his suggestion Timman vs Geller, 1973 and won with it. |
|
| Nov-27-09 | | dTal: <OBIT>, you are right, I got my wires crossed a little bit. Fischer had seen that Geller game and realised the potential of it. I don't think Geller ever mentioned it to Spassky because they probably never discussed this variation. Do you know of any account which says Spassky forgot? |
|
| Jan-10-10 | | A Karpov Fan: what if 23...Nb6 followed by Nd5? |
|
| Jan-10-10 | | zanshin: <what if 23...Nb6 followed by Nd5?> <AKF> I see where you're going. 
click for larger viewThe problem is that it allows for <24.Qxc5>. And if <24...Qxc5>, then <25.Bxe6+>  . |
|
| Jan-10-10 | | A Karpov Fan: cool, thanks <zanshin> :-) |
|
Jan-23-10
 | | Domdaniel: Fischer had, in the previous two years, beaten Mecking with 1.b3 and Tal with 1.g3 (admittedly in blitz). Evidence, however, that he saw himself as a 'universal' player rather than a 1.e4 monomaniac. Spassky's decision to play the Agincourt (1.c4 e6 - the French against the English) as a way of transposing to QGD lines was probably based on general considerations, ie his greater experience in these systems. Playing 1...e5 would have led to a reversed Sicilian, and strategic plans which Fischer knew inside out. Not that it mattered in the end. The sheer variety of openings used by Fischer, as both Black and White, is a defining feature of the 1972 match. I only wish that today's top players shared his understanding that *any* half-decent opening can be used to get a good game. The endless procession of Slavs and Spanishes is so unimaginative. |
|
Jan-23-10
 | | gezafan: I think this was a pretty good game.
Spassky was very hard to beat in this variation. Only the very best players could do it. |
|
| Jan-23-10 | | AnalyzeThis: Pretty good, huh? Lol.... thanks. There are some GM's that think this is like a Mozart symphony. |
|
Jan-23-10
| | Domdaniel: Mozart could be pretty good too, but he was no Bach. |
|
| Jan-27-10 | | hstevens129: The pun would've worked better had Fischer played 1. e4 |
|
| Feb-25-10 | | soothsayer8: Wow! Fischer should have played the Queen's Gambit more often! This is far from "boring". |
|
| Feb-25-10 | | Petrosianic: <Spassky was very hard to beat in this variation. Only the very best players could do it.> I think this may actually be Spassky's first loss with the Tartakover Variation. Of course he didn't prepare for it at all against Fischer, and had to rely on trying to remember his 1969 analysis OTB. Would have been gutsy if he'd played the Tarrasch Defense. He played that a lot in 1969 too, and did pretty well with it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 33 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 38.Rxf6