|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-27-02 | | drukenknight: well here it is Sneaky the famous Fischer Petrosian game 1, 1971. Do you know the story behind this game? It was said that 11...d5 was a cook, thought by Suetin and Averbakh. At home analysis thought of Averbakh who had studied Fischer's moves and came up with this, according to Evans. They said after the game Petrosians wife was so mad at Averbakh for mesing up her husband with his stupid line that she hit him w/ her purse or something. Well it makes a funny story huh? Its too bad no one asked Bobby what the real story was, because Bobby with his photographic memory would have been sure to recall this game: Fischer vs H Rossetto, 1960 take a good look at this game, and compare the position of Rosetto at move 9 with this game at move 11. NOw thats the real story. |
|
| Nov-27-02 | | PVS: The Petrosyans are perhaps the most vile couple in chess history. |
|
| Nov-12-03 | | drukenknight: Well we might as well get to game 1 of the PEtrosian match since I mentioned game 2. This is the very interesting sicilian. The 11th move is supposed to be a novel move prepared at home, but Suetin had played Ba3 in other Kan/Taimanov/Paulsen sicilians so I dunno maybe this was just one of several ideas that they were working on. Petrosian gets a real agressive opening, Fischer I think was behind on the clock, I thought 14...Rd1 was better then ...000, but then 15...Rg8 just doesnt seem to be in the spirit of agression. Evans suggested 15...b5 as crucial move, but the last time I played it, it didnt seem to decide anything. What do folks think of 15...Nd4? Imagine you are Fischer and had to figure that one out. See what lines you come up with over the board w/ no help from computer. |
|
| Feb-06-04 | | Sylvain Ravot: Why not 16...Rxg2! ? 17.Qe3 Nd4 is crushing for black ! With 18.Kf1 Nxc2 19.Qf3 and here the terrific 19...Rxf2+  |
|
| Feb-07-04 | | Calli: <Sylvain Ravot> Pretrosian planned Rxg2 in his homework, but for some reason he changed his mind during the game. You are right, it is the best move. White would continue 16...Rxg3 17.Ne4 and Black would have nice endgame advantage. |
|
| Feb-07-04 | | drukenknight: Interesting. I believe even as early as that move there was time pressure for PEtrosian, maybe Bobby too, a little later? THey spent a lot of time on the early moves and it is possible that they are a little nervous around moves 15/16 really that entire sequence. Look at those moves. Black removes the pressure by exchanging. It seems that he was destined by the gods of chess to get his rook on the 7th rank but no.... Finally he gets the Nd4 in on move 18 what if he had played it before he took the pressure off? The game might have just gotten sillier. It's hard to say what would happen between those two, Petrosian could in the early days look a little better then Fischer in terms of moves under pressure. Granted by 1970 he didnt look like the same guy at least not in that brief set w Fischer. IN fact insome of those carokanns it looked like PEt. had the right idea in the opening and then backed off the obvoius repercussions of the agression. Backing off, of course, into some deeply planned positional/defensive game. Which probably would have worked in 1962, but he didnt seem to make the kind of perfect impeccable moves that you need to survive in a carokann, when it doesnt break quite right for you. Cause if you dont follow up the attack, you can pretty well bet that you've created soem sort of odd weakness in the position. YOu can go back to those carokanns and see that Pet. made some inaccuracies late in a couple of those games that deeply messed up his defense. Not really some brilliant combo by Bobby. Maybe he thought he was better at positional game than Bobby? OR at least had better chances. He seemed to have adopted this attitude about Bobby at some pt. earlier in their careers, didnt he? DIdnt he say that the best way to play would be in closed positions? Petrosian sees that but I dont see that because petrosian playing closed positions that he perfected against his russian fellows would probably not be the same type of thing against Bobby. They can open up just as quickly as anything other opening, so I'm not sur how far you can get with that reasoning. Bobby can just defeat the whole idea in one crazy move. How did Geller play against him? NOt real pattern, just brinksman ship. Petrosian was not prepared to play that game. But as Petrosian himself said you have to play on the brink of the abyss. What does that Mean? What did Tarrasch say: when you start an attack you must keep attacking? Same thing? Same idea expressed differently? |
|
| Jun-15-04 | | jarm: An extraordinary power in endgame. |
|
| Aug-24-04 | | acirce: As Petrosian wrote: <Why I didn't play 16..Rxg2 I simply can't explain>. It was indeed home preparation. Fischer told Argentinian journalists that <Petrosian played very well in the first games> and <I could have lost all of them> according to Soltis' recent "Bobby Fischer rediscovered". |
|
| Jan-20-05 | | Hesam7: From "Bobby Fischer goes to war":
<Game one began on 30 September. Halfway through, when Fischer found himself unexpectedly on the defensive, the lights blew. The clocks were stopped and Petrosian left the stage; Fischer meanwhile, carried on sitting there, staring at the board. His Soviet opponent complained to the arbiter that Fischer was benefiting from free calculation time - contemplating his next move in the gloom while his clock was not running. Fischer allowed Schmid to restart the clock, while he remained thinking in the darkness.> |
|
| Jan-20-05 | | drukenknight: which brings up an interesting pt: what if the lights had remained out for a long time? or what if Fischer had played a move, would he then push Pet.'s clock? |
|
| Jun-10-05 | | khalil the King: nice game , I think I woud adopt this system as white. |
|
| Jun-10-05 | | Pretzel Logic: < PVS: The Petrosyans are perhaps the most vile couple in chess history. > How so? I've never heard much about any chess player's wife. |
|
| Aug-11-05 | | ARTIN: Lights go out on game 8 as well, and according to Petrosian in a position where Fischer was again on the defensive. It's pretty funny that Fischer would agree to think in the darkness considering how much trouble he had with the lights. |
|
| Aug-25-05 | | RookFile: It turns out that <drunkenknight's>
comparison of this game with
Fischer vs Rossetto, 1960
is not quite correct. The Fischer vs.
Rossetto game is analyzed briefly
on page 409 of Kasparov's OMGP IV.
9... d5 is given a dubious (?!)
evaluation, with 9.... b5 or 9... f5
suggested instead.
The reason why Petrosian's ...d5 is
good and Rossetto's ...d5 is bad is:
"With the bishop on e6 the idea of ...d6-d5 and ...Bxa3 gains greatly in strength: Black immediately gains
fine counterplay" -- Kasparov |
|
| Aug-30-05 | | who: <drukenknight: which brings up an interesting pt: what if the lights had remained out for a long time? or what if Fischer had played a move, would he then push Pet.'s clock?> that would be something. The lights would go on after a few hours and Petrosian would realize he had lost on time!! :) |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | BobbyBishop: Had Petrosian indeed taken the pawn with ...16. Rxd2, it seems a draw might have likely been the result barring any mistakes by white. 17. Ne4 Rg4
18. f3 Rf4
19. Qxa5 Nxa5
20. dxe6 Nxc4
21. exf7 Rf8
22. Nc5 Rd4
23. Rxd4 exd4
24. Rg1 Rxf7
25. Rg8+ Kc7
26. Ne6 Kd6
27. Nxd4 Nxa3
The dust has settled and the computer gives white an evaluation of +0.10 |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | Gbness: In my opinion, 14...O-O-O was a huge mistake. Although the game changed character, that was practically begging Fischer to land a huge queenside attack. |
|
| Sep-06-05 | | RookFile: Well, Kasparov analyzes the daylights
out of the consequences of 16... Rxg2,
and black has a clear to winning advantage. The criticism Kasparov had
was over the failure to play 16... Rxg2 and go for it. |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | Hesam7: The position after 16 ... Rxg2 has been a matter of debate for years, I have not seen the analysis by Timman or Kasparov, if someone can please post them here. I checked the position after 16 ... Rxg2 with Fruit 2.1 and here is the result: 17 Ne4 Qb6 18 Qe3 Qxe3+ 19 fxe3 Bg4 20 Rb1 Na5 21 Bd3 f5 22 Nf2 Rxd5 23 Nxg4 fxg4 24 Bf5+ Kd8 25 Be4 Rdd2 26 Bxg2 Rxg2 27 Rf1 Rxc2 28 Rxf7 Rxh2  (eval: -0.71) Depth: 18/61
2.059M nodes
200K nodes/sec |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | crafty: 16...♖xg2 17. ♘e4 ♖g4 18. ♘xf6 ♖xc4 19. ♕xa5 ♘xa5  (eval -0.91; depth 13 ply; 1000M nodes) |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | Hesam7: Thanks <crafty>. Fruit thinks different from you. After 16 ... Rxg2 17 Ne4 Rg4 it likes 18 f3. <chessgames.com> Is that "1000M nodes" correct? My engine searches the same depth with much less nodes, can you explain the difference? |
|
| Sep-07-05 | | Boomie: What about 15...♘d4? I stared at it for a while, then called my Uncle Fritz over to the board. Here's the Fritz parade for black's 15th move. 15...Ne7 16. O-O-O
(16. Rb1 Rhg8 17. g3 Rg4 18. Bd3 Nxd5 19. Ne4 Qxa3 20. f3 Rg7 21. O-O f5 22. Qf2 fxe4 23. Qa7 Kd7 24. fxe4 Nc7 25. Rxb7 Qc3 26. Kh1 Rc8 (-1.11/13)) 16...Qxa3+ 17. Kb1 Rhg8 18. Rhg1 Qb4+ 19. Bb3 Bxd5 20. Nxd5 Nxd5 21. Qxb4 Nxb4 22. g3 Rg7 23. a3 (-0.85/14) 15...Rhg8 16. Bd3 Bxd5 17. Nxd5 Qxd2+ 18. Kxd2 Rxd5 19. Ke3 Ra5 20. Bxh7 Rxa3+ 21. c3 Rxg2 22. Bf5+ (-0.73/14) 15...Nd4 16. O-O Bxd5 17. Bxd5 Rxd5 18. Qd3 Rd7 19. Ne2 Qb5 20. c4 Qc6 21. Nxd4 Rxd4 22. Qg3 (-0.42/13) 15...b5 16. Bb3 Nd4 17. O-O Bxd5 18. Bxd5 Rxd5 19. Qd3 Rdd8 20. Ne2 Nxe2+ 21. Qxe2 Qxa3 (-0.21/13) |
|
Oct-17-05
 | | chessgames.com: <<chessgames.com> Is that "1000M nodes" correct? My engine searches the same depth with much less nodes, can you explain the difference?> As far as we know, it's correct. Crafty might have been 99% of the way to 14 nodes, but until it searches every possible continuation 14 ply deep it continues to report "13 ply." For all we know, it was 13 ply deep with only 50 million nodes--and 950 million nodes later it still hadn't fully mapped out the 14th ply. Also, most chess engines (including crafty) will often look far beyond the "ply depth" when a certain line appears forcing, therefore a computer can find a mate in 12 (24 ply deep!) when normally it would take an hour to analyze far fewer ply. This may cause one to see a node count which appears bigger than what you would expect for the ply-depth. <everybody> Nice photo, isn't it? |
|
| Oct-17-05 | | Hesam7: <chessgames.com> thx for the explanation! The photo is really cool but is it from this game? What is happening on the other board?? |
|
Oct-17-05
| | chessgames.com: Good point Hesam, it can't be the candidates final if other games are taking place. We've identified it as Fischer vs Petrosian, 1970 from Belgrade, USSR vs Rest of the World. The photo moved over there now. Thanks. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
