|Jan-17-05|| ||be3292: <Patzer> Please explain the ending for me. Have they agreed upon a draw? If so, why? My understanding is rudimentary. |
|Jan-17-05|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: I'm not patzer, but I'll give it a shot. Material is even and neither side has attacking chances. The bishops of opposite colors and the pawn configuration would prevent either side from being to gain an advantage in the endgame, if the queens get traded off. So Fischer and Smyslov, two players noted for their endgame technique, decided to call it a draw. |
|Jan-17-05|| ||waddayaplay: The games really shows Smyslov's deep understanding of the game. He must have been 50 or so when the game was played. Fischer takes the b-pawn at move 22, and Fischer who was known to be have a very calculating play, probably estimated he would get an advantage. But Smyslov gets the pawn back. After 27.f5, he threatens among other things 28.Bxc6 Rxc6 29.Rxb4 and if Bxb4 then Bd4#. |
|Jan-18-05|| ||be3292: Thanx <GSM>. |
|Jan-20-05|| ||be3292: <Phoenix> Thank you for this collection. In your intro, tho, you say "Here is my analysis ... " etc. All I see are the collections. Am I missing how to access your analyses? |
|Nov-13-06|| ||Joshka: None other then current World Chess Champion Kramnik praises Fischer for his originality during the 90's saying "Fischer played twenty-five years ago like we do today" Modern ideas such as 9...Bg4 and the Rook manuever b8 c6 a6 are examples.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||RookFile: <waddayaplay: The games really shows Smyslov's deep understanding of the game. He must have been 50 or so when the game was played. Fischer takes the b-pawn at move 22, and Fischer who was known to be have a very calculating play, probably estimated he would get an advantage. But Smyslov gets the pawn back. After 27.f5, he threatens among other things 28.Bxc6 Rxc6 29.Rxb4 and if Bxb4 then Bd4#. >|
So in other words, Smyslov was able to get a draw with the white pieces.
|Nov-13-06|| ||euripides: Interesting. Elsewhere Kramnik has expressed rather different views. From an interview on his website: |
<Kasparov is said to have stated that Fischer was a pioneer of modern chess.
- I don't think so. Spassky also played up-to-date chess. Fischer discovered modern preparation in the opening. Unlike Botvinnik who realised the importance of preparation, Fischer gave it a modern slant: he set tasks for his opponent at every move with either colour and in every opening.>
There are some translation difficulties here, but in that interview Kramnik doesn't seem to identify anything particularly original in Fischer beyond the quality of his opening preparation.
|Nov-13-06|| ||euripides: See http://www.kramnik.com/eng/intervie... for the link to the interview.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||ughaibu: The two remarks aren't neccesarily in conflict.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||ughaibu: I'm a non-dyslexic one-finger typist, so I dont understand how I come to write "neccesraily" when I mean to write "neccesarily", (I rectified that one), I'm even more puzzled as to why I intend to write "neccesarily" when I want to convey "necessarily". Any ideas?|
|Nov-13-06|| ||euripides: <ugh> My point is that I'm curious what 'originality' Kramnik identifies in Fischer's play beyond his opening preparation. <Joshka>'s reference to <his originality during the 90's> presumably refers to the 1960s or1970s rather than the 1992 match. I agree that 9...Bg4 and Rb6-Ra6 are interesting moves but I don't see the 'modernity' there - I know the rook manoeuvre reminds me of something but I can't remember what :-).|
|Nov-13-06|| ||euripides: <ugh> <neccare> is of course the Latin for 'to kill', perhaps attracted by the term 'conflict' later in the sentence. <neccessarily> has a rather Heraclitean ring to my ears.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||euripides: What I had in mind was on the other side of the board: Taimanov vs Bronstein, 1952. Or even earlier and on the third rank: Pillsbury vs Lasker, 1895|
|Nov-13-06|| ||RookFile: It's kind of funny. If somebody said Lewis was <a> pioneer, the fact that Clark was also <a> pioneer wouldn't be used against him.|
Kasparov said that Fischer was <a> pioneer, and Kramnik said Spasssky was <also>.
|Nov-13-06|| ||euripides: <rook> that was one reason why I thought there was a translation problem. I am still interested to see whether Kramnik has identified anything particularly original in Fischer's play other than his opening preparation.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||RookFile: Well, there is an obvious point, and Kasparov has made it - among the world champion, he is not aware of anybody who so loved the f1 bishop with white. Also, Fischer was famous for playing for the two bishops. Sure, the other guys did too, but not as much as Fischer.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||euripides: <among the world champion, he is not aware of anybody who so loved the f1 bishop with white.> I think Tarrasch said he couldn't play without his king's bishop. Maybe Fischer was the only world champion to feel this way - he was also the only world champion to be born in 1943. Coo-ee !|
|Nov-13-06|| ||RookFile: Well, I'd have no problem rattling off a half a dozen endgames where Fischer won with bishop vs. knight, or the two bishops advantage, in exemplary manner. How many Tarrasch endgames can you so name?|
|Nov-13-06|| ||euripides: <rook> My point about Tarrasch was about the f1 bishop, not the two bishops or the B vs N ending. |
In the B vs N endgame Fischer may have made some contribution, though the idea of the two bishops' advantage in the endgame was made famous by Steinitz and wasn't original to him. In any case, my question was about Kramnik's grounds for attributing of originality to Fischer, not yours (which are, with all respect, a rather moveable feast).
In this game <joschka> identifies exactly the reverse - Fischer's 'modern' exchange of his white-squared bishop for White's knight. To my eyes this idea resembles the old Bg4 idea in the modern Benoni e.g. Geller vs Tal, 1959.
Perhaps the pugnacious pawn grab is a little Fischeresque.
|Nov-13-06|| ||ughaibu: Euripides: Kramnik didn't mention originality in Joshka's quote, Joshka added it, unjustifiedly in my opinion. |
Interesting about the latin roots, thanks.
|Nov-13-06|| ||RookFile: Well, Fischer's middlegame plan with his game against Ulf Andersson got rave reviews.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||Joshka: <ughaibu> Do not know if Kramnik mentioned the 'originality" of Fischer's in the quote, but it was taken from a book from IM John Donaldson..."The Unknown Bobby Fischer". Book came out around 1999.|
|Nov-13-06|| ||RookFile: Anybody who was around when Bobby Fischer was playing chess would find it news to learn that his play wasn't original. Whether it was his love of the two bishops, or willingness with the black pieces to play crazy moves like ...Qxb2 with his army undeveloped, or playing the King's Indian Attack against the Caro Kann (which didn't work out too well, actually, against the Russians) - Fischer was always going his own way.|
|Feb-27-12|| ||lopezexchange: Fischer may have loved his f1 bishop with white, but he wasnt fanatic about it. He played many lopez exchange games, giving it away right out of the opening. He was quite flexible. And he did play the lopez exchange agaisnt top notch competition, never losing a single game with this opening.|