chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Robert James Fischer vs Tigran V Petrosian
"Mad TV" (game of the day Jul-20-2015)
Fischer - Petrosian Candidates Final (1971), Buenos Aires ARG, rd 7, Oct-19
Sicilian Defense: Kan. Modern Variation (B42)  ·  1-0

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 55 times; par: 59 [what's this?]

Get this game explained with Decode Chess
explore this opening
find similar games 28 more Fischer/Petrosian games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You can get computer analysis by clicking the "ENGINE" button below the game.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-04-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Good luck Malfoy in solving 'The Riddle'

The real riddle being is if 23...d4 is so good why did Petrosian not play it?

Actually no riddle there. He was hopelessly off form, he lost the previous game and was heading toward losing 4 games on the trot.

He put up a bit of a half-hearted fight. This centralised octopus Knight...


click for larger view

...hitting both Rooks and both loose pawns. Normally a winner.

Alas Fischer checked to save the Rooks and here.


click for larger view

33...Nxf4 was tantamount to resignation. if you want to play on then 33...Rb6 or 33...Rb8 although both should lose with even 2nd or 3rd best play.

After 33...Nxf4 34.Bc4 (did he really miss this move or just wanted the misery to end.) Petrosian resigned.

Having established one player was in the worst form of his career trying to get any kind of 'truth' from the position will be lopsided.

You yourself said:

"when I start to analyze a position I try to put myself into over-the-board playing conditions..."

So remember to 2nd guess everything and think: 'Would an off-form Petrosian had seen this?'

I'm thinking even if Petrosian had found 23....d4 the mood and form he was in he would have lost in a different way. The evidence is clearly there.

But do go ahead, you sound like you are having fun.

***

Dec-04-20  Malfoy: <Sally Simpson: Good luck Malfoy in solving 'The Riddle'>

Thank you <Sally Simpson>, actually I have no ambition to solve anything, yet I already feel lucky that though no longer a youngster still I enjoy analyzing games end that I like researching.

<The real riddle being is if 23...d4 is so good why did Petrosian not play it?

Actually no riddle there. He was hopelessly off form, he lost the previous game and was heading toward losing 4 games on the trot.>

I asked myself the same question, and I agree. True, already in the first part of the match there were signs of his suboptimal psychologic state, though he had been able to fight on equal terms. So you finally acknowledge that Petrosian reacted horribly to a bad move ;-)

Dec-04-20  RookFile: Make a long story short - whatever the merits of 22. Nxd7 were, you can be sure that Petrosian did not seriously consider the move and was surprised when Fischer played it. As a result he did not offer the best resistance.
Dec-04-20  Petrosianic: <Rookfile> We're way past that part of the discussion.
Dec-04-20  Petrosianic: <So you finally acknowledge that Petrosian reacted horribly to a bad move ;-)>

He reacted badly, yes, but I'm not yet convinced that the move was "bad". "Less than best", possibly, depending on the exact strength of a4, which may be better than I'm giving it credit for.

I might be able to meet you halfway, though, and call the move overrated, without being "bad". Although not nearly as overrated as Spassky's Nb1 once was.

Dec-04-20  Malfoy: <Petrosianic: I might be able to meet you halfway, though, and call the move overrated, without being "bad".>

Actually we walk side by side along that way: I definitely agree with you, but I wanted to provoke Sally a Little :-)

Dec-04-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Clement Fraud: I have studied Bobby's games closely over the years, and have noticed how principled he was regarding the codes of positional play; similar to Karpov, in terms of his refusal to engage in tactics if they breached positional standards. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this game is a case in type, but Bobby would certainly not have played 22.NxB if it wasn't in keeping with his ethics (although many people - myself included - do not care for the move esthetically).

There are various examples of Bobby selecting 'principled' moves which were costly to him in practice (both artistically and materially), but one that springs to mind is 19.Qf1 versus Efim Geller (Fischer vs Geller, 1967). Robert James could sometimes be a prisoner of his own idealism.

Dec-04-20  Petrosianic: <Clement Fraud> Well, Petrosian was rigid about such things too, and often avoided moves with great practical chances because they weren't objectively correct. With him it was a personal thing, though. The world turned upside down during the war, and the chessboard was supposed to be a place where 2+2 always equaled 4. Proving that was more important to him than winning the game sometimes.

Somebody, Bronstein, I think, said that if Petrosian sacrifices a piece, then resign. But if Tal sacrifices one, take it, because he might sacrifice another, and then who knows?

Dec-04-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  George Wallace: <With him it was a personal thing, though. The world turned upside down during the war, and the chessboard was supposed to be a place where 2+2 always equaled>

Is that what he said, or did you just make this up?

Dec-04-20  Petrosianic: That's a paraphrase of what Vik Vasiliev said in <Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games>
Dec-04-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Hi Petrosianic,

" Although not nearly as overrated as Spassky's Nb1 once was.."

Trying to think of that one. Is it a wee typo and is Karpov's 24.Nb1 v Spassky.

Karpov vs Spassky, 1974

***

Dec-04-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <Sally Simpson> The famous 14. Nb1 in Spassky vs Fischer, 1972
Dec-05-20  Malfoy: Yeah, but 14.Nb1 in the 11th game was home preparation by the Soviet analysis team aimed against Bobby's pet Poisoned Pawn Najdorf, whereas 22.Nxd7 was his own invention over the board, though totally typical of his style. Yet a terribly dramatic novelty in the match context, that Nb1, since in the subsequent black game Fischer felt forced to concoct an Alekhine!
Dec-05-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Thanks Beatgiant,

Of course it was. I was stuck on the Spassky-Petrosian matches. Actually recall writing (somewhere) about Spassky's Nb1 v Fischer linking it to Karpov's Nb1 v Spassky with the observation if you want to win in fine style then slip in a Nc3-b1.

***

Dec-05-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: <The best writers use very little analysis, they explain things human to human rather than a page of splurge ending in +0.89.>

Don’t be an idiot, Sally. Human writers use very little analysis when they’re being lazy and trying to sell horse manure to rubes.

Quality analysts provide real depth in their analysis while not resigning the evaluation function to their engines and not ignoring the human element. Here’s an example (Wesley So on Carlsen-Karjakin game 10 from 2016).

https://en.chessbase.com/post/newsb...

Dec-05-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: The Soviet School of Chess lol lol lol

Bobby Schooled the Soviets in chess lol lol lol

Dec-05-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <keypusher.....Human writers use very little analysis when they’re being lazy and trying to sell horse manure to rubes....>

One of the most common manoeuvres of pre-computer days was, when annotating, to fall back on the extraordinarily informative chestnut 'unclear'.

Lot tougher to pull off that move nowadays, as well as the other standard go-to move of annotation by result, mostly done to death by the rise of those selfsame computers, which ruthlessly bare all those shortcomings.

Dec-05-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: Robert James Fischer and Paul Charles Morphy

Versus

Mikhail Soviet Commie Cheat School of Chess

lol lol lol

Dec-06-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: < harrylime: Robert James Fischer and Paul Charles Morphy Versus

Mikhail Soviet Commie Cheat School of Chess

lol lol lol>

Woah, there, Morphy taking on the Soviets? Well, they say he was ahead of his time....

Dec-06-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: ***

Hi K.P.

Thank You, a perfect example on how it should be done. Wes gave personal opinions on how players reacted and handled certain positions. the reasoning why and what he would have done in the same position.

Wes even admitted he was wrong when he was watching the game live only releasing when Karjakin failed to play a move Wes thought was a certainty it was Carlsen trap (note after 19.Bxe6)

Later Wes shuns a computer suggestion on the grounds that no human would play such a move over the board. (note after move 38...Nh6 )

As I said: '...they [good writers] explain things human to human rather than a page of splurge ending in +-.)

Hi Perfidious,

The other fudge pre computer days was 'if in doubt leave it out.' say nothing. That way no one can come back say your were wrong.

Today a computer would get plugged in to fill the gap and hopefully guide the writer but would they follow it blindly or do a Wes So and suggest no human would play this OTB. (thanks again K.P.)

The other standby (the Edward Winter observation) writers copy from each other and use well known games. see J Mieses vs B Richter, 1887 (kibitz #6)

The latter topic on this thread kick off by Karsten Müller at https://en.chessbase.com/post/solut... is a case in point.

This game pops up all over the place. It even made The Burgess,Nunn etc ' The Mammoth Book of the World's Greatest Chess Games: ' and 22.Nxd7 gets '!!.'

As I said earlier this game would not my make my top 100 and 22 Nxd7 it is what I would expect to play. Chop wood and fire into the IQP. It's a plan.

'But it's a famous game Sally.'

That book is not about famous games. No Morphy at the Opera (apparently John Nunn dislikes that game) no Marshall gold coin game etc... It is about 'Great' games. This game is famous, 'Great' is a matter of opinion.

My main objection to the solving of the 'riddle' by Karsten was the 'notes' see the 'notes' after 25...Rb6 on the Chessbase article. It is just screens and screen of computer splurge...ending in +-

***

Dec-06-20  SChesshevsky: < keypusher: Don’t be an idiot, Sally. Human writers use very little analysis when they’re being lazy and trying to sell horse manure to rubes. >

Think the problem in the computer age is that many, maybe most, in the chess universe think that the moves and the resulting numerical evaluation are the analysis. Thus a computer, the stronger the better, spitting out variations 25 moves deep must equal the best analysis.

This process is interesting and does provide some use but really not what I'd call serious analysis.

Think in general, and unless it's forced lines or simple endgames, the usefulness declines significantly for any analytical line that goes longer than 7 or 10 moves. I'd think there's also little need to have more than a couple of line variations. Maybe three rarely. But likely most important, any analytical line without some sort of practical or principled conclusion at the end makes it even less useful. At least in regards to human play.

Think the So example shows this as typical top player analysis. Typically very few ultra-deep lines but with an incisive descriptive punch line as key. The conclusions are the analysis, not so much the moves.

Guess the sum is that Stockfish and his buddies don't really provide analysis. They can and do provide useful data. But it's the human text conclusion to what the data shows that ultimately makes analysis useful or just trivia.

Though it is interesting that I believe a computerized product called Decode is trying to add that text conclusion to the end of computer analysis. Don't know how they do it or how good it is but saw a review by Elisabeth Paehtz awhile back on YouTube that was intriguing.

Dec-06-20  Malfoy: <SChesshevsky: Think in general, and unless it's forced lines or simple endgames, the usefulness declines significantly for any analytical line that goes longer than 7 or 10 moves. I'd think there's also little need to have more than a couple of line variations. Maybe three rarely. >

Well, I think this depends heavily on the number of candidate moves, on the nature of the position and on how much one wants to extend the analysis: as regards the present case, for example, as I hinted in some other post, after 23...d4 you have two main candidate moves, or maybe three, i.e. 24.Bxa6 24.Rc6 and 24.Ra5, and only after having analyzed them deeply enough to convince yourself that they yield nothing decisive you ask yourself if other candidate moves may lead to anything more. But these are many (at least 24.Rcc5, 24.Kf2, 24.a3, 24.g3, 24.Rc4) and difficult to analyze without the help of a computer, since as far as I can see they are all more or less equivalent, with only tiny differences between them as regards the outcome. If over the board, I even wonder whether a GM would dedicate significant time to all of them. From the point of view of a commentator, however, I would probably drop most of the detailed analysis of these additional candidates, exactly because essentially it does not change the overall evaluation.

Dec-06-20  SChesshevsky: <Malfoy: ...If over the board, I even wonder whether a GM would dedicate significant time to all of them. From the point of view of a commentator, however, I would probably drop most of the detailed analysis of these additional candidates, exactly because essentially it does not change the overall evaluation.>

You make a very good point. When playing OTB, you need to do what you have to do and calculate what you have to calculate until feeling comfortable. But good outside analysis probably dictates pruning possibles down to most relevant.

This need for pruning seems it can make being on a top GM's seconds team difficult. The computer can probably spit out reams and reams of lines, say in a Reti. But the seconds don't want to show the top GM everything but they also don't want to leave out anything that might end up being good or something that might not be great but could be faced OTB. Being a second likely much more difficult than might expect.

Dec-06-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  gezafan: <Malfoy: According to very up-to-date analysis, all the hype about 22.Nxd7 and the relevant flurry of exclamation marks should be thrown into the sink: apparently the natural 22.a4 is winning while 22.Nxd7? actually throws away the win because of 23...d4! instead of 23...Rd6? and furthermore both opponent's play in the ensuing endgame was far from perfect. Source: https://en.chessbase.com/post/solut>

Has anyone refuted this analysis? Or is it now held to be accurate?

Dec-07-20  Malfoy: Well, <gezafan>, for what my human analysis (double checked by my comp, though along variations which are hardly longer then ten moves) is worth, White maintains a distinct advantage, but with a tendency to evaporate in the long run, since he has trouble keeping control over the activity of the black pieces: the knight becomes very good on d5, as soon as a white rook leaves an open file one black rook Is ready to take over it, and at some stage Black may push a6-a5 thus sensibly relieving the pressure on his queenside. White has more than a way to enter some rook endgame a pawn up, but nothing to write home about since generally it is a technically defensible one for Black: it would not be unfair to view this scenario the other way round, i.e. that Black has many opportunities to force a tenable rook endgame the a-pawn down with a 3 vs. 3 pawn strutture on the kingside.

At present the best I can find for White after 23...d4 is something like 24.a3 Nd5 25.g3 or maybe better 24.Rc4!? with the idea of simply strenghthening the position, while at the same time trying to restrict the black pieces. Trumps for White are that his king will come into play sooner or later, while Black's one will remain inactive for quote a while, and that exchanging at least one pair of rooks favours White, especially as long as he manages to keep Black's forces stuck to the defense of BOTH a6 and d4, but this Is not easy to achieve.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 16)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 16 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
bondll's favorite games
by bondll
Game 62
from Mammoth Book-Greatest Games (Nunn/Burgess/Emms) by Patca63
Sicillian Defense
by Zhbugnoimt
Game 106
from book: Russians versus Fischer by Baby Hawk
pg. 62
from Seirawan's Winning Chess Strategies by Par72g
Fischer's hogs on the seventh tie Petrosian up.
from Bobby Fischer: Road to the Crown by nosuchdude
50 (22.?)
from Läufer gegen Springer (Varnusz) by trh6upsz
"My God-- it's full of stars"
from Fischer Brilliancies Appraised by Eyal Segal by jessicafischerqueen
p. 42
from Stean's Simple Chess by wvb933
Robert Fischer's Best Games
by KingG
22.Improve Your Chess Pattern Recognition, van de Oudeweetering
from Published Games by Year & Unconfirmed Source 10 by fredthebear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwNAL9wbwtY&feature=fvwrel
from Zugzwang247's favorite games by Zugzwang247
12
from 125 Greatest Chess Games by xajik
MY TRIBUTE TO THE "IRON TIGER"
by Malacha
The Greatest Ever Chess Endgames
by K9Empress
Game 155: The Most Amazing Chess Moves of All Time by John Emms
from nOt sO lOng Games took FTB awhile by fredthebear
Fischer vs the World Champions Decisive Games
by Okavango
Art of War's favorite games 5
by Art of War
Pos. 6
from Fischer His Approach to Chess by BlacKnighT
Game 62
from Mammoth Book-Greatest Games (Nunn/Burgess/Emms) by Patca63
plus 303 more collections (not shown)

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC