Mar-16-06
 | | keypusher: Really interesting opening! Fischer sacrifices a pawn in front of his own king, then immediately trades queens. Does anyone have Soltis' book in which this game is annotated? |
|
| Feb-21-08 | | Helios727: Hard to believe he pulled it off. |
|
| Feb-22-08 | | sallom89: <Helios727: Hard to believe he pulled it off.> it's amazing how he opens up on his own king and white didn't have good attacking chances,and as <rookfile> said trading queen right away after the pawn sac. |
|
| Nov-05-08 | | safar: Soltis does not say much in the book to justify Fischer's play. But it is clear that Fischer saw that the White pawns will be weak (the c and f pawns in particular), White will have diffculty co-ordinating his rooks and Black's bishops will dominate (against the two knights). In the end Black wins the exchange and the rest is technique that Fischer has plenty of! |
|
| Mar-05-12 | | screwdriver: I think the idea for Fischer must be to capture the a pawn of whites and then push his own a pawn across the board for a queen. I'm assuming this is why white resigned. |
|
| Mar-05-12 | | screwdriver: The other thing Fischer could do is take on c4, then he'd have both rooks hitting on the knight on e4. So, I guess white resigned because he doesn't really have a plan to move forward. |
|
| Aug-20-13 | | Zugzwangovich: According to Mednis ("How To Beat Bobby Fischer"), after a 1965 loss to Geller in the Saemisch KID Fischer decided to avoid playing the KID whenever he could reasonably expect the Saemisch and so faced only two more Saemisches after that before winning the title. This is the first of the two; the second was against another Romanian (Gheorghiu) later that year. |
|
Aug-20-13
 | | perfidious: <Zugzwangovich>: Fischer, moreover, played lines he normally did not employ, in each of those games (the dubious 5....c5 vs Gheorghiu). No surprise in '72 that Fischer avoided both the Gruenfeld and King's Indian, given two losses to Spassky in the former and that, had he played the latter, he should certainly have faced the Saemisch. |
|
| Aug-20-13 | | Zugzwangovich: <perfidious: No surprise in '72 that Fischer avoided both the Gruenfeld and King's Indian, given two losses to Spassky in the former and that, had he played the latter, he should certainly have faced the Saemisch.> Exactly right, Alan, and one reason I'm glad the '92 rematch came off is we finally got a chance to see how RJF would do against BVS's Saemisch. He won twice, drew twice, and lost once--certainly not a bad result. |
|
Aug-29-16
 | | profK: Surely 22.g4 Kg7 23.h3 Rh8 24.kg2 survives a lot better for the white camp. |
|
May-07-21
 | | kingscrusher: Amazing situation of bishop pair vs knight pair. But also the two bishops at move 25 are both x-raying rooks - making b5 amazingly effective as a result. |
|
| Jan-15-22 | | jemptymethod: Timman's book "The Unstoppable American" sheds new light on this game. He correctly dismisses 22.h4 as incorrect and prefers 22.Re1 with the idea of following up with b3. Even this is slow, and SF14, and even SF12 which Timman says he had used, much prefer 22.a4, with an advantage big enough that, if I were playing engines-on correspondence, I'd be confident of an eventual victory |
|
| Jan-16-22 | | jemptymethod: Fischer found his ideas too late in this game and only won due to hie opponent's inaccuracies. First he should have steered into that pawn-down middlegame/endgame with 17...Be5 immediately after 17.f5 -- not quite equal but better than the game continuation. And 20...Ba6 would have equalized. Thanks to SF14 |
|
| Jan-16-22 | | jemptymethod: BTW Timman dismisses 20...Ba6 on the grounds of "the strong(?!) strategic exchange sacrifice": 21.b3 b5 22.cxb5 Bxb5 23.Nxb5 Bxd4 24.Nd3 and merely states that "the knight is invulnerable and he gets two pawns for the exchange" but instead of mere prose some actual analysis was called -- 24...Rd8 solves all Black's problems. Since I seem to be going on ad infinitum, a blog post may be called for |
|
Kibitzing
