|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-24-09 | | WhiteRook48: great game by Fischer and Petrosian. I don't think Fischer would've liked the draw. |
|
| Feb-03-09 | | WhiteRook48: on the other hand, maybe he was glad for the draw |
|
| Feb-22-09 | | WhiteRook48: 47. Kg3 seems dubious |
|
| Aug-17-09 | | WhiteRook48: does 47 Qe1 keep the advantage? |
|
| Feb-01-10 | | rune ohlsson: A marvellous game, indeed.
However, Fritz claims that 39. g5 Qad7 40. Bh3 Qb7 41. Qf8 Qbe7 42. Qxe7 Qxe7 43. Qf6 Qd6 44. Kf2 will give White a certain win. Any objections?
Has Fischer commented these moves in his book? |
|
| May-15-10 | | Cavalier: Fischer was indeed a great player but
sadly not a likable human being. But,then again,so was Alekhine.
But Alekhine has permenant memorials
to him on his grave in a French cemetery and an annual tournament held
in Russia,the country of his birth.
Will we ever see a "Fischer Memorial" tournament? What about it FIDE? |
|
| Jul-28-10 | | tentsewang: What an extraordinary game by young Fischer, indeed the game his was but anyway the good move would've been g5. Anyway, its a good to get a draw against the best in the world during that time. |
|
| Oct-04-10 | | eightbyeight: How exactly is "Four Queens" a pun? |
|
| Oct-25-10 | | elohah: I thought this was an amazing game when I was analyzing it the other nite at the Jug. Voted the Most Unobjective notes in 60MG ( I can't believe there was actually a contest like this), I have rushed in to defend my hero's honor, only to discover...all right, look. Bobby made a lot of mis - assessments in his notes here, but let's explain: Early in his career, Bobby had a slight problem with stubborness regarding his variations. But ask yourself why he never played this line in any US Ch. game? Did he? why not? I'm almost grasping at straws here in trying to suggest that he KNEW this was a second rate line, which for some reason he only tendered against the world's strongest Grandmasters - maybe to toughen himself up, and see how they punished it?? That is reaching, isn't it? But hey, you never know! Bobby was a complicated guy. I do know that even very early in his career, he tried to focus on becoming expert in the endgame phase, having observed (mostly correctly) that the Russians were not as proficient in the endgame as they could have been (Korchnoi a prominent exception, of course). Bobby was also really big on PAWN STRUCTURE - the importance of this - and here he is facing a player who also really focuses on pawn structure - I mean, Petrosian is really the Grandmaster in this area... But Bobby - Jesus - Mednis is right. This IS just a BAD line.... |
|
| Oct-25-10 | | elohah: And just WHY is it so bad??
3...! Well, let's start right here.
This is the well known strategical principle (maybe not so well known in Bobby's day) of TRADING OFF THE 'RESERVE' (typically, queenside) PIECE. Typically, your Kingside pieces come out first, because you have to castle, and so these are the pieces that are controlling IMPORTANT CENTRAL SQUARES - such as here, White's KN that is controlling e5, d4.
Generally, in the opening, you don't want to just drop control of important central squares, so why is White allowing this? And even encouraging it??
4 ? And encouraging this is outrageous! (cribbing from my marginal notes in 60MG). Better is:
4 ed! cd 5 Bb5+ Nc6 ( 5...Bd7 =) 6 Ne5! Bd7! =. ( 6...Bxd1? 7 Nxc6 Qb6
8 Ne5+ Kd8 9 Nxf7+ Kc8 10 Kxd1 Qxf2
11 Rf1 Qxg2 12 Nxh8 (note that this knight will get back out - a key reason this will end up favoring White) 12...Nf6 13 d4 Qg4+ 14 Ne2, and here White is better. Just to continue a sample line - Black traps the knight but ends up dumping his own, and so remains down material: 14... Qh5 15 Bf4 a6 16 Bd3 Qe8 17 Bf5+! ( a MUST move to find) e6 18 Bh3. Plus for White. What have we learned?
Trading off the 'reserve' piece is here ALSO trading off the 'minor exchange'. When will it be good? It will....NOT be so good in cases where White smartly keeps his KB ACTIVE. It WILL be good in cases where White is playing a VARIATION rather than PLAYING CHESS and stupidly corrals his KB, locking it in, and turning it into a pawn!. In this second case, you stand a good chance of getting drubbed by the world's leading Grandmasters about three games straight! |
|
| Oct-25-10 | | elohah: 60MG, p. 107, note after Black's 5th:
'The old 5...e6 6 d4? ( my mark) de
7 Nxe4 Qxd4 8 Bd3 gives White a good attack for the pawn.' (?)
No it doesn't. White is down a pawn, and doesn't have Jack for it, as Bobby himself indicates as much in this very same note below the diagram. |
|
| Oct-25-10 | | elohah: To be cont... |
|
| Oct-28-10 | | elohah: 60MG p. 109: Between busses, I suddenly notice that Bobby has baited note [C, so that only [B will be the bust. But I draw ahead... 5... If 5...e6, 6 ed cd 7 d4 is reasonable, since 6 e5 Ne7! will only get, at best, Nimzo-Capa [NY '27]. After 5...Nf6 [text move], we're not that impressed with Spassky-Reshko, since Black can still kick d4 hard. So just 6 ed cd 7 d4 again. Bobby gives 6 g3, then doesn't mention 6...d4! as a response. But after 5...Nf6, Bobby actually plays... 6 ? Nooooo, Bobby! This move is just fundamentally wrong - turning White's KB into a pawn. 6... d4!
7 ? [Yes, I have given BACK TO BACK question marks on Bobby's moves!] 7 g4 [Bobby later played this at Netanya '68], or 7 e5 [Spassky-Reshko, without d4]. 13 (note after diag. ) Bobby convincingly refutes a comment I made on his other game with Petrosian, where the ...g5 cipher was played, tho Simagin thought 14 f4 as well. 60MG p. 109 [top note]: Evidently on 17...g4? 18 Nd2 Rg8 19 Rfc1, Black lacks a long term strategical plan. Note after Black's 15th: 17 b5! is an improvement over 17 Nc4. This is again given in the very next note. 17 Remove Bobby's question mark to the text move, remove the exclam to 17 fe, and place a question mark after it. Note [A: The weakest of Black's alternatives. Bobby fails to mention 18 Qg4+! Qe6 19 Qxe6+ fxe6 20 ab (plus), or 18 Nc4 Qxg3 19 ab (or 19 Rxf7), with 19...b5 being answered in either case with 20 e5! bxc4 21 Qe4! [with the dead hand B still playing anchor relay.] [B: The strongest line, busting 17...fe?, since Bobby misses the obvious 18...b5! (after his 18 Nc4). Then 19 Nxa3 a6 (idea ...Nxe5), sets up a solid enuf defensive screen, and Black is up a pawn. [C: Bobby's parenthesed note (beginning with 20...Qxb4) is key here. Apparently 'penetrates' also means making a backward diagonal retreating move, so that after, for example, 22...Qd6 23 Rfb1 Rd7 24 Qc4! (preventing the necessary consolidating move ...a6), or 23...
Qc7 24 Qb3!, etc. (plus for White). |
|
| Oct-29-10 | | elohah: [D: isn't good enuf either, so only [B busts.
38 Why doesn't Qd8+ win? I don't know, and I'm not up to an extensive analysis just now. It doesn't get all four Q's off, is one problem. And you don't really need to analyze it. Just analyze it like Purdy suggested doing endgame analysis. Just set up various positions in the single Q ending with the g-pawn, ex: WQ/h6; p/g4 (or even g5), or...WQ/f6; p/g4, or...WQ/g8 (the placement that maybe is best) p/g4 (even g5?), and see whether White can (A) shepherd the pawn home , at the same time as (B) he also stops all the BQ's counterplay along the h and f files as well as behind the pawn!
There! In this case, the Purdy 'talking analysis' was indeed quicker! We're done. And as you can see, it's a tall order for White.
Specific moves? 38 Qd8+ Qac7, and if 39 Qxd6+ Kxd6! 40 Qf6+ and g5 is nothing, since ther'll be counterplay with ...Qh7! to stop. That's one example. Another is 39 Qxc7+ Qxc7 40 g5 Qf7! Another is 38 Qd8+ Qac7 39 Qdf8 Qce7, etc. (pointing at g5, f6 later...). So I don't think it wins. |
|
| Oct-29-10 | | elohah: 60MG p. 113, (note after diag.)
'The tournament bulletins suggest 42 c5! Qxc5 43 Qg8+ Ka3 44 Qc2 Qb4 45 Qa8+ Qa4 46 Q2xa4+? (my mark) What about 46 Qc1+!, Bobby?
46...Kb3 (not 46...Kb4? 47 Qb2+, winning a piece) 47 Qg8+ Kb4 48 Qb2+ Kc5 49 g5. This looks like it wins. |
|
| Oct-29-10 | | elohah: Sorry for the express analysis at the end here, but the library's closing. This last note could probably be the most important of all... |
|
| Nov-25-10 | | Toliman: Strange how when the 4♕ are onboard they don't need to be moved. 39.g5! won. White's ♕ are on the propper squares. |
|
| Nov-25-10 | | Toliman: 42.c5! Qxc5 43.Qg8+ Ka3 44.Qc2 Qb4 45.g5! would have won |
|
| Nov-25-10 | | Toliman: The "longer you wait" the harder the win becomes. The win in elohah last line is certainly problematic but if instead 47.Qb8+ Qb4 48.Qg8+ Ka4 49.g5! does indeed seem to win |
|
| Nov-25-10 | | Toliman: After 42.c5 Qde6! 43.Qb8+ (Be2 Kb4!) Nb5 44.Be2 Kc2! 45.Qa8 Kb1 46.Qa5 Qxc5 47.Qe1+ Qc1 48.Qxc1+ Kxc1 49.g5! may still win |
|
| Nov-30-10 | | elohah: Bobby just didn't want to win! |
|
| Jun-01-11 | | say it with a smile: The King Walk reminds me of the song "Walk on the Wild Side" by Lou Reed :-) |
|
| Jun-01-11 | | parisattack: Fischer apparently believed the Two Knights against the C-K was the way and the light early on but finally decided to move on as the bottom line never looked too good. There is a sideline C-K with 3. Qf3 leaving the KN for later development. I always thought it had some potential and there is a small book on it with some fascinating lines. |
|
| Mar-12-12 | | Paraconti: Fischer just liked to play this line back then because it brought him into a sort of reversed KID plus a tempo as white. |
|
| Mar-12-12 | | King Death: <parisattack: Fischer apparently believed the Two Knights against the C-K was the way and the light early on but finally decided to move on as the bottom line never looked too good...> His stubbornness was so well known that even Keres played the Caro Kann against him when normally he'd have played 1...e5. <There is a sideline C-K with 3. Qf3 leaving the KN for later development. I always thought it had some potential and there is a small book on it with some fascinating lines.> Who published a book on 3.Qf3? If I remember right 3...de 4.Ne4 Nd7 5. d4 Ndf6 does well against this. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
icon.