|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-09-08 | | leow: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FISCHER IS PLAYING EXTREMELY SLOW AFTER MOVE 34. WITH THE BACK RANK MATE WITH THE TWO ROOKS THREATENING, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A FASTER SOLUTION, E.G THE CAPTURE OF THE B PAWN IS UNNECCESARY. oR AM I MISSING SOMETHING? |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | euripides: <Leow> Fischer says he was gaining time on the clock up to move 37, but doesn't suggest a quicker win after that. However, he does suggest earlier in the game that he was nervous after repeated defeats against Tal; at move 14 'I was in no mood to speculate' and at move 21 'I was so intent on snatching material and not botching this one that I missed 21.Bh5 ...' So he may simply have been being very careful. There is a small curiosity in the notes in M60MG. Against 39...Qxg4, Fischer gives the line 40.Rh1 Qd4 41.Rh8+! Qxh8 42.Rb8+ winning. But if Black takes the pawn a move earlier he gives 38...Qxg3 39.Rxb5. Wouldn't 38...Qxg3 39.Rh1 work for White ? (It's almost as if the two notes were written by different people). |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | MichAdams: <(It's almost as if the two notes were written by different people).> Is yours the Batsford edition? If so, they most likely were. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | euripides: <Mich> No, it's the Faber one which I believe has the same text as the Simon and Schuster edition. But I don't know whether Larry Evans' input was restricted to the introductions or whether he did some work on the notes. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | MichAdams: Has anyone ever calculated how many Evans on Chess columns included mention of Fischer? |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | euripides: <Mich> Fischer might have done but he didn't publish his results. Assuming Ed Trice hasn't done so I think you can go ahead with the research without fear of being gazumped. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | UdayanOwen: I remember Tal's post-game comment "it's hard to play against Einstein's theory" being mentioned in Fischer's 'My 60 memorable games'. I looked up the game to see if there was any explanation of what Tal meant, but there was none. After that I was flipping around the book, and noticing Bobby's cryptic comments about the move 1.e4. Eg., "Best by test" (what test?)
"I have never opened with 1.d4 - on principle" (what principle?) Common to both comments is the notion that 1.e4 is 'objectively' correct, not just a stylistic preference. I've always wondered what Bobby's justification for these claims would be. Is anyone aware of Bobby having elaborated on his reasons for favouring 1.e4 on objective grounds? |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | Helios727: The opening explorer on this website would suggest that 1. d4 is slightly better when it comes to results. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | 7Heaven: why is this the title (or pun) for the game?
|
|
| Mar-09-08 | | Jim Bartle: I think that afterward Tal sighed, "It's hard to play against Einstein's theory." |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | Amarande: However, 1 e4 has a slightly better *win* rate, even if 1 d4 has a better score over time. Fischer never seemed to be one to play it safe if I recall ... In any case, I'd take the Opening Explorer results with a grain of salt; after all, if we take the White first moves with enough trials to take seriously (say, over 200 games each) then you'd have to say 1 g4?! is White's best move! I just can't seem to wrap around that idea ... nor the idea that the Bird's is as bad as the OE suggests ... |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | A.G. Argent: <..."Einstein"...> Yo, yo, yo, y'all. It's all explained by CG dot com on page 5 of this kibitz. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | drpoundsign: E=MC2 SUCKA!! |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | DarthStapler: 1961 was a bad year for Tal. If this game had been played one year earlier, Tal would have won. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | JG27Pyth: What a game! Fischer made that ending look easy... but there were so many ways to screw it up. LOL. How great to out-Tal, Tal, with that Queen sac. You know some part of Tal was thinking... "Ah, yes, of course I saw 22.fxe5!! I just didn't think he had the nerve! Finally someone else who plays this game the way I do... well done!" And Tal was a good enough sport to think that way, too. I wish these guys had gone head to head, at the top, or near top form, more often. Tal was a top dog in Blitz long after he'd lost his #1 chops/stamina for slow chess... Did he and Fischer ever go at it, Blitz? I think the relativity comment is an unclear reference to the paradox of trying to outsmart oneself -- Another was of saying -- I've been beaten at my own game -- suggesting that Fischer's play there was very Tal-like, perhaps even like a younger Tal. It's not the most accurate direct understanding of Relativity (special or general) but then, Tal was a literature guy, not an engineer. Relativity does, indirectly at least lead into time-paradoxes and other fun-house mirror sort of effects. So, that's what I think Tal was getting at with his comment. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | JohnBoy: <JG> - there are blitz games from about 1970 (when Tal was like #3) between the two - from Herceg Novi. Fischer cleaned up. |
|
| Mar-09-08 | | whatthefat: <JohnBoy: <JG> - there are blitz games from about 1970 (when Tal was like #3) between the two - from Herceg Novi. Fischer cleaned up.> Fischer was obviously playing sublimely at that time, but Tal was a long way from his best in 1970. He was not in the top 7 on the FIDE rating list (see http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Tr...), and was rather in the doldrums going by the chessmetrics ratings (see the graph in http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Summ...). In fact, chessmetrics rates him between 14th and 20th in the world during the course of 1970 (http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Play...), which is his absolute worst year between 1957 pre-championship run Tal and 1989 dying Tal. 1973 was when he hit peak form again (and was even considered the favourite candidate to challenge Fischer for the crown), but alas he declined again just as the world championship cycle began. |
|
| Mar-10-08 | | PaulLovric: Was Fischer Fischer here or Tal Tal, or perhaps Fischer Tal or Tal Fischer, I've hear that comment somewhere can someone explain it? |
|
| Mar-10-08 | | kevin86: Could a 1990s version of Einthein's theory be: E=MC hammer? lol A great battle between two titans-this time won by the teenager. |
|
| Jun-27-08 | | whiteshark: <PaulLovric: <can someone explain it?>> Sure, but your head will explode upon it. |
|
Jun-27-08
 | | Bishoprick: The "best by test," comment was not meant to suggest a real test. It was just part of the lingo (what might be called today "trash talk,")of the talking chess community in New York, along with "You are now in Checkoslovakia," (when administering repeated "checks,")and a few other expressions which could be heard on Washington Square, the Manhattan Chess Club, the Marshall, the New York Chess and Checker Club, and yes, even at the Brooklyn Chess Club in those halcyon days. Bobby made his own contribution to this when discussing the relative merits of 1.d4 or 1.e4, or his comment about the King's Gambit declined. It has all become part of chess lore. |
|
| Jun-27-08 | | Tessie Tura: <Tal was a literature guy, not an engineer. Relativity does, indirectly at least lead into time-paradoxes and other fun-house mirror sort of effects. So, that's what I think Tal was getting at with his comment.> There’s a possibility Tal never said it. It doesn’t really sound like him, when you think about it. I seem to remember the quote came from an interview with Tal and Fischer of dubious provenance. Frank Brady said Fischer denied flatly the quotes attributed to him, so if true it would follow that Tal didn’t say what he’s supposed to have said, either. I don’t know if anyone ever asked Tal. Tal did once joke, in the early days when he was cleaning Fischer’s clock with monotonous regularity, that he was entitled to sign autographs as Bobby since he beat him so often. Fischer probably didn’t think that was very funny. |
|
| Jun-28-08 | | percyblakeney: <Tal was a literature guy, not an engineer. Relativity does, indirectly at least lead into time-paradoxes and other fun-house mirror sort of effects. So, that's what I think Tal was getting at with his comment.> Maybe he thought it didn't sound as good to say "It's difficult to play against Dostoevsky's Idiot". :-) Otherwise my interpretation of the alleged comment would be that Tal meant that Fischer was playing scientific chess of a sort as pure as Einstein's theory. |
|
Oct-10-08
 | | maxi: Yes, <leow>, you are right. Taking the silly b7 Pawn right away with 34.♖b7 would have led straight to Black having to sacrifice the Queen to avoid mate, no questions asked. Clearly Fischer was playing under great stress, since he had never been able to beat Tal. This explains, too, missing the rather obvious 21.♗h5. Of course, after taking the Pawn there is the variation 34.Rb7 Qh1+ 35.Ka2 Qd5+ and you have to make sure that there is no perpetual. This should have been easy for Fischer since there are two Pawns for shelter and the Rook on the b-file, but he was very uptight and just did not want to take any chances. The Russians thought that Tal had fallen into a prepared trap; that's why Tal said that it was difficult to play against Einstein's theory, that is, great theoretical preparation. |
|
| Dec-02-08 | | WhiteRook48: <How to demolish Tal by Bobby Fischer> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 11 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 23.fxe5