|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-21-18 | | Howard: But, was the position a complete win after 22.e5. |
|
| Sep-04-18 | | Howard: In Yasser's book Winning Chess Masterpieces, he closely annotates this game (along with 11 others), and there's a point where he states "Both Geller and Reshevsky are wrong" regarding a certain point. Was it Geller's 14...Qb7 improvement. Please elaborate. |
|
| Sep-04-18 | | CharlesSullivan: <Howard><In Yasser's book Winning Chess Brilliancies ...>
I usually don't comment about opening issues, but here goes...
In <Reshevsky on The Fischer-Spassky Games>, Reshevsky assigned two question marks to Spassky's 16...Ra7 and wrote, "A seriously (sic) tactical move from which Spassky never recovered." [I think he meant to say, "A serious tactical mistake from which Spassky never recovered."] Reshevsky said that "correct was 16...Qb7." In <Winning Chess Brilliancies>, Yasser Seirawan says that "Boris Spassky's second (or coach), GM Efim Geller, also considers the text a mistake, offering 16...Qb7 as an alternative." So both Reshevsky and Geller think 16...Qb7 was best; Seirawan says that "Black's best move would have been 16...Qa7"; and Spassky actually played 16...Ra7.
click for larger view
After searches longer than an hour, the results are in:
(a) <+0.00> 16...Ra7 17.Be2 (Fischer's move) 17...Qf8 (instead of Spassky's 17...Nd7) 18.Rc2 Nd7, etc.
(b) <+0.00> 16...Qb7 17.Ba4 Qb6 18.Ne5 a5 19.f4 Ra7 20.Qb3 Qxb3 21.axb3 Bf5, etc.
(c) <+0.00> 16...Qa7 17.Ba4 a5 18.Ne5 Na6 19.e4 Nb4 20.exd5 Bxd5 21.Rfd1 c4, etc.
So 16...Ra7 was perfectly OK. |
|
| Sep-04-18 | | chessrookstwo: fisher all the way in this |
|
| Sep-05-18 | | Howard: That book by Reshevsky on the match was atrocious ! I've seen it before. To be fair, it was at least better than Fine's "book", but that don't say much! |
|
| Sep-15-18 | | jonjoseph: I was amused by the tick tock effect of the Queens finding it hard to make up their minds and hopping to and fro also the rook bobbing up and down .The amazing pressure on the empty square at G7 and then the ominous shift to the next diagonal . A truly crushing attack and paused by a single pawn move on the A file which seemed almost pure housekeeping . |
|
| Oct-26-18 | | chessrookstwo: Fisher was a genius period!!! |
|
| Jan-26-19 | | oolalimk1: what happens if Spassky plays 40 Rg6 check? |
|
Jan-26-19
 | | diceman: <oolalimk1:
what happens if Spassky plays 40 Rg6 check?> You mean Fischer?
1) +6.22 (23 ply) 40...Rg7 41.Rxh6 c4 42.e7 Rgxe7 43.Qd5+ Rf7 44.Be4 Rd7 45.Qh5 Rf1+ 46.Kxf1 Qxh5 47.Rxh5 cxb3 48.Bd5+ Kg7 49.Bxb3 Ra7 50.Rb5 d3 51.Kf2 Re7 52.Rxa5 Rd7 53.Ke1 Rd4 54.g3 |
|
| Sep-30-19 | | Chesgambit: Puzzle 14. Bb5?! gain advantage ( Qa4!? Qa3 Bb5?!) |
|
| Jan-09-20 | | yurikvelo: multiPV of Spassky mistakes
https://pastebin.com/ft6NzPnS |
|
| Feb-09-20 | | Gaito: Frank J. Marshall played Qa3 in a very similar position in 1909, when he defeated Capablanca (7th match game). It was Marshall's only win of the match, but a very beautiful win. I wonder if Bobby Fischer had studied that game and copied the move Qa3 from Marshall.
click for larger view |
|
| Feb-09-20 | | Nerwal: Probably not, 12. ♕a3 was already well established theory in 1972 (first played in E Eliskases vs Spielmann, 1936). The fresh move was 13. ♗b5 although not really new either (Furman vs Geller, 1970 and in the book on his best games published in the early 50s Tartakower already mentioned the line 12. ♕a4 ♖c8 13. ♗b5 c5 14. ♕a3 ♔f8, although that last move is better known after ♗e2, due to Winants vs Kasparov, 1987) |
|
Apr-13-20
 | | bourbon: I think it is not true that black made no obvious mistake and lost. Spassky had major coordination issues in this game.
Fischer cleverly made use of both diagonal and vertical pins on the c5 pawn, which along with ugly placed Be6 and h6 allowed fatal weakening of light squares. Black failed to activate his knight either to f6 or d5, instead of pointless queen shuffles. Then d4 just unnecessarily gave fischer kingside majority and strong e6 pawn. |
|
| May-05-20 | | Chesgambit: 14...Qb7! Spassky forgot this move ( I notice this before)
this idea played before
black exchanged some pieces after Nxd5
it's good strategy |
|
| May-05-20 | | RookFile: Blingice posted this link 13 years ago in this thread, and it still works. This beautiful game, set to music:
https://fvss.ytmnd.com/ |
|
May-05-20
 | | harrylime: Robert James Fischer is the greatest chess player of all time. I loike the lowdown on his games tho with silicon .lol lol lol |
|
| Aug-08-20 | | Gaito: By chance, I was playing over a game Petrosian vs. Trikaliotis, Siegen Olympiad, 1970, and noticed that exactly the same position arose, except that Black's h pawn had not been moved:
click for larger view
Just like in the Fischer vs. Spassky 6th game there followed 13...a6, and Petrosian moved his bishop to d3 (Fischer played dxc5 which seems maybe better). However, Petrosian won that game with a very instructive fight against Black's hanging pawns. I like very much the game Petrosian vs Trikaliotis from Siegen 1970, because Petrosian played like Capablanca: He kept Black sewn up on the queen side protecting his hanging pawns, and suddenly White managed to launch a quick K-side offensive while Black's pieces were busy on the Q-side. A highly instructive game by Petrosian. |
|
Aug-08-20
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
See above - Petrosian vs G Trikaliotis, 1970 *** |
|
Sep-17-20
| | Sally Simpson: ***
If one wants to get a better understanding of this game, then instead of ploughing through the 30 odd pages here you could see how Tal noted up the game in '64' (№ 30, 1972). The translation from
the original Russian is by Douglas Griffin.
Note after Spassky's 20th move, 20...d4.
"...the position takes on an all the more technical character and is all the more in
keeping with Fischer's standard - the better position without counter-play for the opponent. Perhaps, all chess players love such situations. But Fischer loves them in particular." https://dgriffinchess.files.wordpre... *** |
|
Sep-17-20
| | harrylime: <<Sally Simpson: ***
If one wants to get a better understanding of this game, then instead of ploughing through the 30 odd pages here you could see how Tal noted up the game in '64' (№ 30, 1972). The translation from the original Russian is by Douglas Griffin. Note after Spassky's 20th move, 20...d4.
"...the position takes on an all the more technical character and is all the more in keeping with Fischer's standard - the better position without counter-play for the opponent. Perhaps, all chess players love such situations. But Fischer loves them in particular." https://dgriffinchess.files.wordpre...
***> >
Appreciated you postin this Sally
Tal loved Bobby .
This article is aimed at the Soviet COMMIE market at the time tho and thus is tainted. |
|
Nov-08-20
 | | ray keene: Here is the link to the chess column I write every Saturday for @TheArticle. I hope you enjoy it and if you have time do please share the link, and I would be most grateful for any ratings on The Article site , especially the full fifteen stars 😀😀😀 https://www.TheArticle.com/fischer-... |
|
Nov-08-20
 | | Dionysius1: Great to see you both here and at The Article! I'd seen references to TA around, but it took your post here to nudge me into registering. I'm looking forward to dipping into it - I miss the physical newspapers during lock down. Don't be too fashed about getting 15/15 - not only would people have to think it was well argued and interesting but they'd have to agree with everything you say. Interesting AND agree with it all - how would that even work? New lines of argument to support the conclusions they already agree with, I suppose. Anyway, very much enjoyed the current one, and looking forward to more. Keep safe and well, eh? |
|
| Jan-09-21 | | MrJafari: Fischer was great but one feels lack of fight spirit in Spassky playing!! |
|
Feb-28-21
| | Caparlsen: <From Euwe/Timman's book on the match:
<14.... a6
Another idea is 14.... Kf8 [...]. In one of his theory books, Pachman indicates 14.... Qb7, also threatening 15.... c4. I don't agree with him, as after [...].14.... Qb7! <Pachman> not <Geller>? How accurate are Timman's comments?> In Pachman's book on the Queen's gambit, he mentions 14...Qb7, quoting an analysis by Kusminich in the 11/49 issue of Shakhmaty v. SSSR. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 31 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
sac: 38.Rxf6