< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
|Jun-09-09|| ||notyetagm: http://www.truechess.com/web/oversi...|
27 ... ?
click for larger view
27 ... ♗g5xf4?
click for larger view
TRUECHESS: <[27. ... Bxf4? An obvious shot would have been 27...Rxe5! since 28.fxg5?? Qxf1+ mates]>
27 ... ♖f5xe5! <discovered pin: f1>
click for larger view
|Jun-17-09|| ||The Brain99: Why didn't Tal simply play 50. d8-Q+? Seems like it would be an easy win. Then again, I must be overlooking something.|
|Jun-17-09|| ||kellmano: <The Brain99: Why didn't Tal simply play 50. d8-Q+? Seems like it would be an easy win. Then again, I must be overlooking something.>|
50 ..... Rxd8 is one of only two legal moves, but is quite sufficient.
|Jun-20-09|| ||butilikefur: 45. Kd6 is soo won. I mean I don't even need an engine to say that Tal made a huge mistake with d6.|
45. Kd6 Rxd5+ 46. Kxd5 a2 47. Kd6 a1=Q 48. e7+ Ke8 49. Rc8+ Kf7 50. e8=Q+ and after 50...Kg7 or 50...Kf6 51. Qh8+ wins the Black Queen on a1. Aw man, Tal.
|Jun-20-09|| ||WhiteRook48: 45 d6??|
|Jul-08-09|| ||TheFocus: Hands down, this was the strongest blitz tournaments of all time, and Bobby Fischer was the greatest blitz player of all time. Gary Kasparov could not have carried Fischer's jock strap, neither in blitz nor in regular play. Fischer played as an individual and burned his own midnight oil, unlike Kasparov, whose success was due in a big way to his team of helpers. What has been touted as his originality and innovations must be laid at the feet of his helpers. In his heart, although he was a great player, Kasparov will always have to acknowledge Fischer's superiority.|
|Jul-10-09|| ||keypusher: <TheFocus In his heart, although he was a great player, Kasparov will always have to acknowledge Fischer's superiority.>|
Given that Kasparov wasn't a quitter and proved himself the best player in the world for 20 straight years, he doesn't have to acknowledge anyone's superiority. Given his arrogance, I doubt that Kasparov does.
|Nov-23-09|| ||butilikefur: 48. e7+ Kd7 49. Rc7+ (49. Re4 Rf4+; 49. Rc8 Re2) 49...Kxd6 50. e8=Q Kxc7 and White can probably make a draw. Not 48. Rb4 c1=Q 49. Rb8+ Qc8 and the e-pawn is pinned.|
|Dec-22-09|| ||butilikefur: <43. Ke5 Ke7>
<43...Rxh2 44. Kd6> 44. d6 Rh5+ (44...Re2+ 45. Kd5 a4 56. e7+ Ke8 57. Rc8+ Kf7 58. Rf8+ Kg7 59. Rf1 Rd2+ 60. Ke5 Rd1 61. e8=Q Rxf1 62. Qe7+ Kg6 63. Qe6+ Kg2 64. Qg4+ Kf8 65. Qc8+ and 66. Qxc2 wins) 45. Kf6 Rh6+ 46. Kf5 Rh5+ 47. Kg6 Rh2 48. e7+ Kd7 49. Rc8 Re2 50. Rd8+ Kc6 51. e8=Q+ Rxe8 52. Rxe8 Kd7 (52...Kxd6 52. Rc8) 53. Re1 a4 54. Rc1 Kxd6 Rxc2 and White wins.. however, 53...Kxd6 54. Rc1 Kc5 55. Rxc2+ Kb4 56. Kf5 and I don't see how White wins - 56...Kb3 57. Rc5 a4 58. Ke4 a3 59. Kd3 Kb2 [59...a2 60. Rb5+ Ka4 61. Rb8 Ka3 62. Kc2] 60. Rb5+ Kc1 (60...Ka1 61. Kc3 a2 62. Kb3 Kb1 63. Rd5) 61. Kc3 a2 62. Ra5 Kb1
<44...Re2 45. Rc5> 45. Rg4 Kc8
<45...a4 46. Rc3> 46. Ra5 c1=Q (46...Kc8 47. Rc5+ Kb8 48. e7 wins)47. Ra8+ Qc8 48. e7+ Rxe7 49. Rxc8+ Kxc8 50. Kxe7 a3 51. d6 a2 52. d7+ Kb7 53. d8=Q a1=Q draw
<46...Rd2 47. d7+> or 46...a3 47. Rxa3 as White's 46th move has put Black in zugzwang
|Jan-17-11|| ||notyetagm: http://www.truechess.com/web/oversi...|
27.Rd6 Bxf4? [An obvious shot would have been 27...Rxe5! since 28.fxg5?? Qxf1+ mates]
|Dec-28-15|| ||Reavvan: hey guy loser is loser so don't make an excuse for tal's defeat,remember when tal played kasparov,tai was a sick old man but he beat kasparov,in 1970 tal was young,so it proved that fischer is better then kasparov,that's it no contest|
|Dec-28-15|| ||King Radio: <
|Dec-28-15|| ||mrbasso: Fischer was better than Kasparov,Tal and Carlsen together.|
|Dec-28-15|| ||King Radio: <mrbasso> You forgot Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Euwe, Botvinnik, Smyslov and many others. Fischer was so much better than all of them put together. Even if he couldn't beat the old Botvinnik in '62.|
|Dec-28-15|| ||RookFile: Kasparov was the greatest player in the world for 20 straight years, except for the time when somebody else was the world's #1. Oops.|
|Dec-28-15|| ||diceman: Fischer was so afraid of Capablanca,
he made sure he was born after his death.
|Dec-28-15|| ||TheFocus: <diceman> <Fischer was so afraid of Capablanca,
he made sure he was born after his death.>
I was wondering if it was just me.
So when they talk about "Fischer fear," they are referring to this?
|Dec-28-15|| ||Gregor Samsa Mendel: The best explanation for why Fischer was born after Capablanca's death is reincarnation. (Yes, I'm joking--I think.)|
|Feb-20-16|| ||PawnSac: < TheFocus: So when they talk about "Fischer fear," they are referring to this? >|
No. Within his contemporary group of top GM's, Fischer was the only S-GM many of them were afraid to play. They were psychologically beaten before the game started.
|Feb-20-16|| ||PawnSac: < diceman: Fischer was so afraid of Capablanca,
he made sure he was born after his death. >|
nonsense.. Fischer admired Capablanca, and his play began to resemble that of the Cuban, but he considered Morphy to be the most accurate player of all time.
I can't say i understand how he came to this assessment, but it was his opinion.
|Feb-20-16|| ||RTJR: Of the 11 classical games that Fischer and Tal played against each other, Fischer won only two. Tal won four, and the other five were draws. We can talk about age-differences and the times they were playing, but the stats do not bear out any Fischer dominance over Tal.|
|Feb-20-16|| ||PawnSac: <Reavvan: hey guy loser is loser so don't make an excuse for tal's defeat,remember when tal played kasparov,tai was a sick old man but he beat kasparov,in 1970 tal was young,so it proved that fischer is better then kasparov,that's it no contest >|
It only proves that Fischer was better than Kaspy <IN 1970> , but at this time Fischer was already declaring himself the world champion, and he was in fact at the peak of his powers (1970-1972) and his dismantling of all opposition certainly proved it. In 1970 Kaspy was only 7 years old. He didn't become WCC until 1985 at 22 yrs old.
as for Tal vs. Kaspy i think you need to look at the facts..
Classical games: Garry Kasparov beat Mikhail Tal 2 to 0, with 9 draws. Including rapid/exhibition games: Garry Kasparov beat Mikhail Tal 3 to 1, with 11 draws. Only rapid/exhibition games: Garry Kasparov tied Mikhail Tal 1 to 1, with 2 draws.
Tal's only win in the database is this one..
Tal vs Kasparov, 1992
Note that it's a BLITZ game. Anything can happen in blitz, and in this particular game (i suspect involving prepared analysis) Garry got preoccupied trying to analyze the complications and used his time up in only 17 moves. Very uncharacteristic of him. Nevertheless, a loss is a loss. BUT in classical games Kaspy is up 2-0, so the most one could argue from this game is that in blitz Tal excelled, and could give ANY player a run for his money. He in fact won the world blitz championship in 1988 in Chicago. His positions got better and better as his opponents faltered. I too lost a game to Tal that year. He came to the US 1 month before the blitz championship and did a series of simul exhibitions to "warm up" for the championship. It was in NJ and Tal played some 45 boards. His only loss was to life master Paul Powell, who i met in 1991 when i moved to DE. He was the DE state champion at the time, and We played many a blitz game at the Wilmington chess club. If i recall correctly, most of our classical and rapid games in tourneys were draws, but he won the greater number of blitz games, though i won my share.
Now.. I beat the DE champ, and the DE champ beat Tal. So does that make me better than Tal? Of course not! thats absurd. But it is precisely the nature of the logic you use.
I also beat IM Vivek Rao in the only blitz game we ever played (World Open 1993 at the Adam's Mark Hotel in Philadelphia). Does that make me better than him in classical play? Of course not! I'm confident he could best me in a classical match.
The moral of the story is.. BLITZ IS BLITZ. anyone can win or lose ONE game. So lets not lose our heads in posturing, as so often goes on around here.
|Feb-20-16|| ||PawnSac: < RTJR: Of the 11 classical games that Fischer and Tal played against each other, Fischer won only two. Tal won four, and the other five were draws. We can talk about age-differences and the times they were playing, but the stats do not bear out any Fischer dominance over Tal. >|
It is unfortunate there were not more games between them in the later years, BUT one must note the nature of the scores. ALL of Tal's wins were in 1959, and Fischer was still a junior player of only 15 years old. Tal became world champion the following year. Fischer was still climbing the ranks gaining experience and strength. It is significant that Tal never beat Bobby again after 1959. All Bobby's wins were in their later years. AND in 1988 when i played Tal, the chess club was invited to ask the great Tal questions before the simul. One of them was "Can you tell us your opinion of Bobby Fischer?" Tal went on to say that after their initial encounters Bobby was getting stronger and stronger, and in 1972 was probably one of the greatest players who ever lived. All of the best GM's respected him, and many feared playing him. He also said one of the greatest regrets for the chess world is that he stopped playing, because he was producing some of the most beautiful and historic games. Tal was humble about it, and admitted in not so many words that Bobby was the unquestionable BEST at his prime (1970-72). No one dominated the chess world like him.
|Nov-25-16|| ||drleper: <PawnSac: < diceman: Fischer was so afraid of Capablanca, he made sure he was born after his death. >|
nonsense.. Fischer admired Capablanca, and his play began to resemble that of the Cuban>
I think you'll find that was what is known as a joke :P
|Nov-20-19|| ||m.okun: This is a blitz, and thatís it. In a normal game, Tal would not have lost at least such an ending.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·