|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-29-07 | | RookFile: <jackpawn: This is a typical Fischer game from the period. Go over his games in 1970. Time and again he will create a weakness in his opponent position, strip the position down, and then just hammer away at the weakness (the doubled pawns in this case). The opponent is given the choice of meekly getting grounded down (not a pretty sight!) or trying a wild counter attack (as Petrosian did here). Say what you want about Fischer today, but at that time he was simply in a class by himself.> That's right. Especially with white, Fischer played this way. The style had similarities to Capablanca, and Karpov. Fischer with white was: just win baby, no nonsense, I'm going to grind you down. |
|
| Apr-07-07 | | jackpawn: <RookFile> I agree with your point about being especially true with white. With black Fischer's games were much more complicated. I also agree that Karpov was similar with white. Fischer played with greater energy, however. Fischer would create a weakness, strip the position, and his opponent would resign before reaching move 40. Karpov had the same general style with white, but it was more of a slow death. |
|
| Apr-07-07 | | RookFile: Yes, that's right, Karpov was content to play for the endgame win. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. |
|
| Apr-07-07 | | veigaman: <rookfile> <jackpawn> great post for both, agree with you. As once i read: " fischer was 2 players in one person depending if he plays with whites or blacks" |
|
| May-11-08 | | Alphastar: If there is a way to exploit 3. ..Nc6!? it most certainly isn't exchanging on d5. Instead of 6. ..Bg4, which is rather committal, I would have prefered 6. ..Bd7, eg 7. O-O Bd6 8. Re1+ Ne7 etc. |
|
May-12-08
 | | An Englishman: Good Evening: <Alphastar>, you are correct in theory--e5 is probably better. Now consider the circumstances. Fischer only needed a draw to advance to the finals, while he knew that Petrosian would be forced to take a lot of risks and make some dubious moves in order to win. Fischer--who once said, "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves"--is using psychology to mess with Petrosian's head. Obviously, it worked. Your suggested line for Black keeps White's edge to a minimum. Unfortunately for Petrosian, it contains no winning chances, so he couldn't play it. |
|
| May-12-08 | | RookFile: Technically, I don't think this point about the score is right. Had Fischer drawn this game, the score would be 6-3 in a 12 game match. In theory, if not in likelyhood, Petrosian could then win the remaining 3 games and tie the match. |
|
| May-27-09 | | WhiteRook48: pawns are too much! |
|
| May-29-09 | | totololo: Just like in old westerns :
"Draw pardner" !
Tigran wanted to play French . He ended-up to play a form of Steinitz Spanish with the typical pawn formation in the bad position as d5 is advanced and the typical pawn construction c7-d6-c5 is not anymore possible. I had the impression to see Petrosian handling the white pieces against an unknown master. This is to say how much Fischer understood his opponents.... |
|
| Nov-15-09 | | WhiteRook48: white's pawns are too powerful |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | Petrosianic: And speaking of oddly labeled openings, this should really be considered a Nimzovich Defense, rather than a French, slightly transposed from 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 e6. |
|
| Apr-20-10 | | The Famous Chess Cat: 21.c4 is brilliant. |
|
| May-24-10 | | kingfu: How about 3...Nc6 as the losing move? Block the c pawn in a French? I guess Tigran was trying for surprise and trying to fill out the Soviet profile on Bobby. Is there a profile when you are crazy? |
|
Jan-27-12
 | | FSR: <kingfu: How about 3...Nc6 as the losing move? Block the c pawn in a French?> Reuben Fine might agree with you: he gave 3...Nc6 two question marks in his pamphlet about the match. This is extreme; I'd say ?! at worst. Moreover, as <Alphastar> said, "If there is a way to exploit 3. ..Nc6!? it most certainly isn't exchanging on d5." (Fine did not question Fischer's decision to transpose to the innocuous Exchange Variation.) Two later GM games ended in draws after the more natural 9...0-0: DeFirmian vs Rozentalis, 1994 and F Braga vs B Lalic, 1992. |
|
Jan-27-12
| | FSR: White's score after 5.exd5 exd5 is only +8 =17 -4. Opening Explorer |
|
Jan-27-12
| | FSR: I dug up Reuben Fine 's pamphlet on the match. Fine gave 3...Nc6 two question marks, observing: <Every beginner, even those who have not read my books, knows that Black should not block his QBP. Why Petrosian does so remains incomprehensible.> After Fischer's 6.Bb5, he wrote:
<Kid stuff. Black is now strategically lost.> When I read this as a kid myself, I was mightily confused. White has blocked his c-pawn too, and it's a symmetrical position. So if White (instead of playing 6.Bb5) could pass, and did so, Black would play 6...Bb4 and <White> would be strategically lost? How can that be? Is the value of one tempo in the Exchange French so great that it turns the position from  to  ? |
|
| Jan-27-12 | | RookFile: I think Petrosian's Nc6 was fine, he was lost later. |
|
| Jan-27-12 | | parisattack: Fine was a bit of a pedant... |
|
| Jan-27-12 | | Petrosianic: He was something that starts with 'p' and ends with 'ant'... |
|
| Jan-27-12 | | parisattack: Your Freudian slip is showing <Petrosianic.> |
|
| Jan-28-12 | | Shams: Piquant? |
|
Jan-28-12
| | FSR: <parisattack: Fine was a bit of a pedant...> That's for sure. I remember in one of his books (I think <Chess the Easy Way>, but it could be <Ideas Behind the Chess Openings>) he dismissed the Double Fianchetto Defense, basically claiming that White just had to develop his pieces and would automatically win with an attack. Someone played that line against me in one of my first tournament games, and I discovered it really wasn't that easy. My queen got trapped on about move 12, and that was that. Indeed, even if you're a strong GM, the game doesn't win itself - at all. See, e.g., Kavalek vs Suttles, 1974. |
|
Jan-28-12
| | FSR: Similarly, having been raised on Reinfeld, I was shocked to see Fischer playing 7...Qb6 and grabbing White's b-pawn against Spassky in the world championship. Didn't that just lose? Fine in his book on the match, true to form, claims that the Poisoned Pawn Variation is unsound, and that Spassky's 14.Nb1!!! (his punctuation) is the refutation. Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 The Lasker-Pelikan-Sveshnikov Variation of the Sicilian was another shocker to me. Much more recently, 3...h6 in the French: Adams vs Short, 2011 What the hell? |
|
Jan-28-12
| | FSR: <Petrosianic> Pleasant? Pheasant? Protuberant? Pageant? |
|
Jan-28-12
| | FSR: Fine, instructing his readers how to deal with such "Irregular Openings," wrote that "once a plus in development or center is set up, a well-conducted attack will decide." Reuben Fine, Ideas Behind the Chess Openings, David McKay, 1943, p. 228. Tell that to the White players in games like L Barczay vs Ivkov, 1967 and Baburin vs Miles, 2000. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
