|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-16-06 | | AlexanderMorphy: gr8 game! |
|
| Mar-16-06 | | itz2000: 42. Ne1(!!) |
|
| Sep-17-06 | | MyriadChoices: I hadn't seen the Be3 defense before, but it seems to have worked out mighty good. |
|
| Nov-10-06 | | Rama: The position after 22. c4 ..., is impressive. I don't like 22. ... bxc4, though. 22. ... Qb6, 23. a5 Qc7, 24. cxb5 cxb5, looks okay, with Nf6 coming, or Ne5 if possible. 36. Nc5 ..., is a real "Bobby-move"! After 40. Nd6 ..., we can see it coming. Did he see it all on move 36?
And when did he notice the extraordinary 42 Ne1!
Bobby's motor is running. He finishes the tournament with a string of wins. |
|
Dec-20-06
 | | keypusher: <whatthefat: This is arguably Fischer's most impressive game from the 1970 Palma IZ where he destroyed the field. He plays a flawless game to victory.> Agree -- computer-like calculation throughout and elegance at the finish. |
|
| Dec-20-06 | | euripides: Fischer borrowed 13.Qb1 from some Russian bloke. Not much hope after that: Games Like Fischer vs Ivkov, 1970 |
|
Dec-20-06
| | keypusher: Not sure why the <Games Like> feature doesn't pick it up, but Spassky also played 13. Qb1 against Gligoric: Spassky vs Gligoric, 1969
According to the Wade & O'Connell Fischer collection, Spassky got an advantage with 14. a4, so it was to be assumed that fellow Yugoslav Ivkov had something ready to use against Fischer in that line. But Fischer played 14. a3 instead and got a quite different sort of game. |
|
| Mar-26-09 | | TheWizardfromHarlem: my favorite fischer game perfect example of him imposing his will over his opponent.. from about move 16 onward black is concentrating all his forces and energy on the c5 break to just abandon it all together after Fischer's strategic manuevering on top of that c5 becomes a weakness!..that has to be psychologically crushing for the other guy |
|
| Mar-26-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Qb1 is a common move in Torre attacks against the King's Indian setup, as is b4. The main difference between those setups and this one is the black bishop sitting on f8 instead of g7. |
|
| Sep-05-09 | | Garech: Is there anything wrong with 42. Kh2? |
|
Sep-05-09
 | | Phony Benoni: <Garech> After 42.Kh2 Qf4+, Black can trade queens. True, the resulting endgame is probably lost, but that's still better than being mated at once. |
|
| Mar-10-11 | | BarcelonaFirenze: Can you help me? What's the point of 42.Ne1? Is black compelled to take the knight? Thank you in advance. |
|
Mar-10-11
| | keypusher: <BarcelonaFirenze: Can you help me? What's the point of 42.Ne1? Is black compelled to take the knight? Thank you in advance.> 42.Ne1 is played to avoid the exchange of queens that would result after 42.Kh2 Qf4+. <phony benoni> already pointed this out -- often it's a good idea to read previous kibitzing. As for the second question, I guess you could say Black isn't compelled to take the knight, but only because he is lost whether he takes it or not. He can't defend f7, and he can't take the white bishop: 42...fxg6 43.Qxg6+ Kh8 (or 43....Kf8 Qf7#) 44.Nf7#. |
|
| Mar-11-11 | | Damianx: me questioning Fisher that,s funny but isn,t 39 Nd6 crushing |
|
| Mar-11-11 | | pulsar: <Damianx: me questioning Fisher that,s funny but isn,t 39 Nd6 crushing> 39...Nxf4. |
|
| Jul-31-12 | | Poisonpawns: Speechless. Comment-less. |
|
| Jun-25-14 | | sicilianhugefun: A Chess fantasy... Fischer's Bc1 followed by Qd3 is indeed elegant |
|
| Aug-23-15 | | thegoodanarchist: 42. Ne1 may be my favorite knight sacrifice of all time. |
|
| Oct-15-15 | | kamagong24: bloody game! |
|
| Nov-03-15 | | jerseybob: 13.Qb1 is first of all a defensive move; black's threatening to win a pawn since the bishop on e3 blocks the rook on e1. It's also the start of a slow, subtle q-side strengthening program, one made easier by black's dubious 20..Nf4!? |
|
| Mar-18-21 | | Albion 1959: Move 42 Ne1!! A neat deflection sacrifice. Ivkov was probably expecting Kh2? Whereupon he can simplify and force a queen exchange by Qf4+ and he survives to reach an endgame, albeit two pawns down. Fischer saw further and must have seen Ne1!! in advance? |
|
| Mar-22-21 | | Albion 1959: Was Ne1 !! A decoy or deflection sacrifice? I can never quite get them right. This was the last time that Fischer and Ivkov played each other. They certainly produced some hard fought and interesting games, where they brought the best out of each other ! |
|
| May-25-21 | | Dave12: <Albion 1959: Was Ne1 !! A decoy or deflection sacrifice? I can never quite get them right>
Ne1 !! is not a decoy, just a beautiful way to avoid the exchange of queens.
An incredible Fischer-eye move |
|
| May-25-21 | | SChesshevsky: Fischer certainly deserves kudos for the flashy Ne1 finish. But what really amazed me is his almost effortless transition from concentrating and accomplishing a queen side advantage to a devastating exploitation of a weak king side f7 square. The CG computer seems to prefer continuing play on the queen side after 30...Qb8 to push the advantage. Wonder if stronger programs agree? Is Fischer the only one to consider a king side attack? |
|
| May-25-21 | | Petrosianic: <SChesshevsky>: <But what really amazed me is his almost effortless transition from concentrating and accomplishing a queen side advantage to a devastating exploitation of a weak king side f7 square.> Well, that's GM chess. You have to be prepared to trade one advantage for another. Larry Evans used to write about trying to express all advantages as being advantages in either Space, Time, Material, or Pawn Structure, and being able to transition one of those types of advantages into one of the other types. Sometimes it's a necessity, as one type of advantage can't be maintained in that form, and you have to either convert it or lose it. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 39.Qf6