| Dec-27-14 | | jerseybob: No kibitzing on this one? I'm shocked. Spassky channels his younger self to produce a masterpiece, against a player who might have gone on to be World Champ if not for his illness. |
|
Dec-27-14
 | | keypusher: <jersey-bob: No kibitzing on this one? I'm shocked. Spassky channels his younger self to produce a masterpiece, against a player who might have gone on to be World Champ if not for his illness.> If Karpov had a stroke, Korchnoi retired, and Kasparov was never born, he would have had a decent shot. |
|
Dec-27-14
| | keypusher: Game doesn't impress me much either. The "OMG can't believe this hasn't been kibitzed" schtick is irritating even when the game really deserves it. Which this doesn't IMO. |
|
Dec-27-14
 | | Benzol: It appears that the e-pawn was taboo and 21.Nxe4 eventually costs Mecking a piece. Spassky himself had something similar happen to him three years earlier in Karpov vs Spassky, 1973 |
|
Dec-27-14
 | | Fusilli: <keypusher> I concur. It looks like Mecking moved his pieces around rather awkwardly and was punished accordingly. (Of course, you still need to be a GM to find the right punishing moves.) This game is a bit odd, coming from a tournament where he overall excelled. Actually, that this was his only defeat may be enough reason to kibitz on it! |
|
Dec-28-14
 | | offramp: <jerseybob: No kibitzing on this one? I'm shocked. Spassky channels his younger self to produce a masterpiece, against a player who might have gone on to be World Champ if not for his illness.> ...
<keypusher: Game doesn't impress me much either. The "OMG can't believe this hasn't been kibitzed" schtick is irritating even when the game really deserves it. Which this doesn't IMO.> I agree that the <"OMG can't believe this hasn't been kibitzed"> rubrick is unbelievably annoying. It is 50 times worse, though, when that is the entire kibitz, which I have seen many times. |
|
Dec-28-14
 | | perfidious: <keypusher: Game doesn't impress me much either.> Same here--this is rather like a player of roughly my strength facing a top GM and getting his head handed him. |
|
| Dec-28-14 | | Howard: Offhand, I don't know what's wrong with a comment like "can't believe this game hasn't been kibitzed", but to each his own. At any rate, Chess Life and Review ran the moves of this game back in late '76, and Kavalek (who wrote the tournament article) remarked that this game was played late in the tournament, when Spassky was already out of the running as far as being able to qualify for the top three Candidates spots. "But he had not lost his willingness to fight", as Kavalek remarked about this game. This was Mecking's only loss in the event, on his way to clear first. By the way, Spassky DID make it to the Candidates after all, going all the way to the finals match against Korchnoi. As far as the highly "unusual" way he made it in, the story is rather well-known ! |
|
Dec-28-14
| | keypusher: <Howard: Offhand, I don't know what's wrong with a comment like "can't believe this game hasn't been kibitzed"> Happy to help, Howard.
1. It's drool-bucket dumb. There are over 738,000 games on cg.com, and more are being added all the time. As I write this, according to the main page, there are 109 registered users on site. Inevitably the vast majority of games are going to go unkibitzed. Some interesting and remarkable games are bound to be among their number. If you find a great unkibitzed game, I guarantee I can find a better one. Also, as we see vividly illustrated on this page, kibitzes beget kibitzes, so the games that attract kibitzes tend to have been kibitzed already. Given all this, if you don't understand why a good game hasn't been kibitzed, well, you're an idiot. 2. It's obnoxious. The author of such a post manages to simultaneously (i) congratulate himself for his discriminating taste and enterprise (ii) criticize all the other posters who failed to notice such a masterwork before (iii) impart not a scintilla of information about the game itself. At least <jerseybob> managed to note <something> about this game other than its lack of prior kibitzes, though he exaggerated both its merits and its significance. In conclusion: if you see a good or important game that hasn't been kibitzed, say why it's so damned special. Then shut up. Now if we could just get this added to the FAQ.... |
|
| Dec-28-14 | | zanzibar: Even if I disagree, I like it when a good argument can be presented for the other side. Even with a touch of hyperbole (drool-bucket dumb etc.), so long as its entertaining. Yes, there is an element of self-congratulation involved, but what's the harm in that, if not done to excess? Of course, I do agree that the comment should contain more, e.g. the reader's opinion about why the game is worth attention. A blizzard of kibitzing resulted here, and a quick scan yields some informative comments (or so I assume, e.g. Mecking's only loss). So, however the ball got going, the end result seems beneficial to all. But let's leave it for the moment and consider...
<keypusher> <If you find a great unkibitzed game, I guarantee I can find a better one. Also, as we see vividly illustrated on this page, kibitzes beget kibitzes, so the games that attract kibitzes tend to have been kibitzed already.> This would make an interesting challenge. <CG> could have a weekly list of nominees for un-kibitzed games, and the public could vote on best pick. An adjunct to GOTD, and perhaps a sanctuary (i.e. pun-free zone). (Not sure if its such a good idea, or one that could be sustained. But I thought I'd share the thought). |
|
| Dec-29-14 | | jerseybob: keypusher: Alright, I'll say why I like it: It's a Sicilian; I love that opening and the sight of a well-played Sicilian warms my heart(well-played by black anyway!). Secondly, I'm a Spassky fan - even though I rooted for him to lose in '72 - not only of his playing but of him as a person, and I like to see him do well(which he's not these days unfortunately). |
|
| Dec-29-14 | | RookFile: White didn't do much attacking in this game. One way to play it is the double edged g4 and g5 stuff that Karpov did sometimes. Spassky knew what he was doing in chosing this opening. Mecking wanted a comfortable game. What he should have been doing was going "all in" on an attack. |
|
| Dec-31-14 | | Howard: To keypusher...thanks for your comments. By the way, we "met" before regarding another game. Do you recall which one that was?! Just looked it up a moment ago ! |
|
| Dec-09-19 | | cunctatorg: Nevertheless, if Henrique Mecking had been the winner of the 1976 Manila Interzonal and this game is his only defeat at this highly demanding tournament, this game is quite interesting and worth an investigation... |
|
Dec-09-19
 | | HeMateMe: Hadn't Mecking made it back to the world top 20 at this point? I don't feel the love for Henrique here, on this page... I think Spassky is still world top five, at this point. Mecking just becomes part of the statistic that top GMs occasionally look butt ugly awful against world champion super GMs. Don't bag on the Brazilian, stuff happens... |
|
Aug-09-21
 | | Honza Cervenka: 23.Rd4 would have been better. Of course, 23...f5? would be just bad for 24.Bxf5 Qxe3 25.Bxc8 etc. <RookFile: White didn't do much attacking in this game. One way to play it is the double edged g4 and g5 stuff that Karpov did sometimes.> That's exact. Instead of 16.Nc1 it was possible to play 16.g4 with intention 17.g5 and better game for white. |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
