|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-08-09 | | PugnaciousPawn: The Scandinavian can actually be an effective weapon, but you must be precise! 3...Qd8 was Addison's first mistake, as 3...Qa5 is the correct move in the system. Defenses like the Scandinavian take the opponent out of book lines. |
|
| Mar-04-09 | | fischerstein: Addison played this opening like a patzer. I think that 6... Qc8 was horrible. Nc6 would have been much better. After only 7 moves he's way behind in development and his queen side is just ridiculous. Anyway, he brought it upon himself by playing the Scandinavian the way he did. |
|
| Mar-04-09 | | Jim Bartle: Fischerstein: How would black have continued after 6...Nc6 7 Qxf5? |
|
| Mar-04-09 | | Absentee: What was Addison thinking, playing the scandinavian against Fischer? |
|
| May-01-09 | | ToTheDeath: <Jim Bartle: Fischerstein: How would black have continued after 6...Nc6 7 Qxf5?> LOL.
Nice game by Fischer- it's a bit like his famous win over Najdorf actually. Fischer vs Najdorf, 1962 |
|
| Oct-06-11 | | jbtigerwolf: Fischer has it going on, but this resignation looks premature. |
|
| Oct-06-11 | | jbtigerwolf: Actually... I see it! Fischer goes a pawn down, but opens his c-file. Not only that, but attacking with Rc1 puts his Rook at the base of that c-file. He has what I have learned is an 'isolani pawn structure' and it's beautiful. He gets tempi too! I think I might adopt this tactic. |
|
| Nov-21-11 | | SoundWave: <PugnaciousPawn: 3...Qd8 was Addison's first mistake, as 3...Qa5 is the correct move in the system.> 3...Qd8 is a perfectly playable line although Qa5 is perhaps slightly better. |
|
Nov-21-11
 | | SteinitzLives: Actually, the rage is now 3. . . . Qd6. Svidlar uses it. |
|
Nov-21-11
 | | harrylime: < SteinitzLives: Actually, the rage is now 3. . . . Qd6. Svidlar uses it. > Cool. Would've loved to have seen Svidlar playing Qd6 against Fischer.. Oh, sorry, might add, against a Fischer armed with a Lap Top .. lol |
|
| Nov-21-11 | | AnalyzeThis: Addison tried to make this a sloppy tactical game (best chance against Fischer), but Fischer was stronger than him at tactics too. In hindsight, I think Addison did the best he could. |
|
| Jul-27-12 | | JoergWalter: <AnalyzeThis: Addison tried to make this a sloppy tactical game (best chance against Fischer)...> took Fischer a handful of excellent moves to demonstrate that: 7.Bg5!
11.Bxf6!
13.Bb5!
16.h4!
18.Nce4!
and the thing is done. |
|
Jul-29-12
 | | diceman: <Absentee:
What was Addison thinking, playing the scandinavian against Fischer?>Fischer finished 3.5 points ahead of the field with 15 wins, 1 loss, and 7 draws. I don’t think Addison was the important element in this game. :):):) |
|
| Jul-29-12 | | JoergWalter: Addison would have become a professional chess player had he qualified in that tournament.
I guess he became a lawyer.
However, he drew Karpov in an exciting breathtaking gameW G Addison vs Karpov, 1970 |
|
| Jul-29-12 | | master of defence: Why not 23...Qxb1+ 22.Bxb1 Bxb1? Isn´t better for black |
|
Jul-29-12
 | | perfidious: <master of defence> The snag is that 25.Nc7+ Kd7 26.Nxa8 wins, as Black loses his other rook if he snatches the knight on a8. |
|
| Jul-29-12 | | RookFile: <What was Addison thinking?> My guess is he had the same thought Viktor Krueger had in Highlander: "I'd rather burn out than fade away".
That is, he could play some defense like the Ruy Lopez and get ground down in 45 moves over so, without mercy. Or, he can take a shot and try to make this a sloppy tactical game. His execution was flawed, but on a high level, I think he had the right idea, playing against a much stronger opponent. |
|
| Jul-31-12 | | JoergWalter: here is a video on this game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np7J... |
|
| Feb-09-15 | | Howard: If you want to see this game annotated at roughly a class-D level, then simply Google... "Fischer" and "Addison" and "California, here I came".... In other words, the late Larry Evans went over this game in the April, 1971 issue of Boys' Life. Still remember that ! |
|
May-05-16
 | | Honza Cervenka: I don't like 13.Bb5. This move seems to lose momentum of white's initiative for a moment, and black could have got quite decent game after 13...f5! as <KingG> suggested years ago. Instead of that 13.h4! (threatening h5 and forcing thus black's reply) 13...h5 14.Ng3 with firm control of e4-f5 was more precise continuation. |
|
May-15-21
 | | kingscrusher: <JoergeWalter> I appreciate the age of analysis without any computer help. It does highlight though that the analysis in that video is very technically flawed indeed but it does have some good fundamental points to make of course. It is interesting to think that two grandmasters and one of them being Karpov (but encouraged by Henley to agree with some comments) without computers get a lot of technical details really wrong. As one example they both suggest intuitively that Bxc2 is because otherwise White would castle queenside. This is very "romantic" analysis for beginners. The thing is if instead of Bxc2 say e6 and then 0-0-0 Black would have Bg4 which is more than a technical issue: 
click for larger viewOUCH!
Then later, there is a suggestion that gxf6 was played because if Nxf6 then another romantic notion is introduced that white would somehow smash through with d5. It seems in fact that 11...Nf6 would have been far more solid than gxf6. E.g. 11...Nxf6
12. d5 e5!
And black is just equal here
click for larger viewWhich does actually tend to question the root cause here - was Fischer right in fact in playing the committal 11.Bxf6 For me it seems Fischer took all sorts of risks against what he saw the weaker players of the opponent. In the analysis here at Chessgames.com the analysis seems to go to the reverse end of objectivity in such games when in fact in a large number of instances the weaker players had great resources and opportunities. This game is no different. Objective analysis with the help of computers does help reveal the truth of positions and can navigate in my view to more solid strategies and ideas. Objectively it seems 11.Bxf6 by Fischer is actually a mistake. It turns out it seems there is a far more powerful idea: 11.Nf4
Then if ...Be7
Bxe6!
click for larger viewAnd this is a big advantage for White independent of whatever black does. |
|
May-15-21
| | kingscrusher: (continued...) I think maybe the issue with e5 from analysis at the time pre-computers is that actually, Nb5 looks terrifying:
click for larger viewThere are threats of Nxc7+ and Bb5+
But it seems black here has Bc5 which kind of proves Fischer may have taken a risk with Bxf6 earlier - giving the opponent the dark squared bishop: 
click for larger viewThis seems fine for black objectively |
|
May-15-21
 | | beatgiant: <kingscrusher>
<if instead of Bxc2 say e6 and then 0-0-0 Black would have Bg4>
I checked the video. They were talking in general terms about White's plan of development and not a specific line. Of course it's understood the plan requires due preparation. Also I agree that 11. Nf4! is a big improvement over the game, but after the suggested 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. d5 e5 13. Nb5 Bc5, <14. d6> does not quite look fine for Black to me. |
|
| Dec-11-21 | | Mathematicar: Morphy of the 20th century. |
|
Jul-14-22
 | | Ziryab: In Kevin Wicker, <200 Modern Chess Brilliancies> (1981), which has this game as number one, the very next game features 3...Qd6: A Mengarini vs E Schiller, 1980 |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 21.Rxd5