| Jul-15-06 | | oao2102: wow! A fischer game with no kibitzing...there can't be too many of these |
|
| Jul-15-06 | | suenteus po 147: <oao2102> There's well over a hundred here in the database still. Much rarer, though, is the Fischer win without kibitzing. |
|
| Aug-18-08 | | Helios727: Was this one lost on time? |
|
| Oct-28-08 | | Endangered71: I don't think it was lost on time. Black is a rook up. |
|
| Mar-30-09 | | thebuilder05: Well, it says Manhattan BLITZ. I think white could just take a chance and move his pieces over to support the pawn |
|
| Mar-30-10 | | orangehonda: Don't be silly, Fischer was invincible at blitz vs top players in the 70s, moving all around hoping for a win on time may work in trash online games against amateurs but not against Fischer... |
|
| Mar-31-10 | | AnalyzeThis: If anything, I suspect that Fischer would have won on time, not Kevitz. "White resigns" was definitely the right move. |
|
| Jul-03-11 | | Damianx: Just to clever he makes it look like he is playing me not GM,s |
|
Feb-17-12
 | | Penguincw: This game started like how it started in Game of the Century. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | jerseybob: This was played at the Manhattan CC, 8/8/71, right after he polished off Larsen 6-0, with Petrosian looming next. (1)Fischer 21 1/2 (out of 22) (2)Soltis 19 1/2,etc. Most of his wins that day could stand up well as regular tournament games. |
|
Aug-21-13
 | | offramp: Fischer's opponent was 70 years old!
For Fischer to beat him at blitz was hardly the Upset of the Century. |
|
| Aug-21-13 | | jerseybob: Offramp: I'm not sure I get the purpose of your post. I never suggested this game was an upset; I was just noting the quality of the play. Fischer was Fischer, but even at 70 Alex Kevitz was still a strong master, not the spent force you seem to be implying. |
|
Aug-22-13
| | offramp: Poor old Alexander Kevitz! Hooked up to an ECG, attended by nurses and specialists, communicating his moves from the gurney by flickers of his eyelashes, and Robert James Fischer bashing out moves like a machine-gun and spluttering out bits of milkshake as he shouts, Knights on the rim are grim and So you drew with Svetozar Gligoric LOL!! |
|
| Aug-12-25 | | notatiger54: @offramp - No clue what you're aiming to accomplish with your two dumb and potentially offensive comments here. This being the internet, I guess "offensive" might be your only goal, in line with the dictionary definition of trolling. As for the "dumb" part, I'll note only that Kevitz won the championship of the powerhouse Manhattan Chess Club in 1977 -- a full SIX YEARS after this game.
A post about Kevitz's career will appear today on the U.S. chess history Facebook page, A Pawn Made Flesh. https://www.facebook.com/profile.ph... Keep an eye out for it. |
|
| Aug-13-25 | | Petrosianic: <notatiger54>: <@offramp - No clue what you're aiming to accomplish with your two dumb and potentially offensive comments here.> To understand it, you should probably look at the post it's responding to, which was one of those typical glib assurances about how Fischer steamrolled his opponents in this event, and his games were good enough to be regular tournament games. People tend to yawn out superlatives about Fischer without much thought or interest, and assume without looking that every one of his wins is the equivalent of Bambi Meets Godzilla. His post is clearly mocking the attitude of the post he was responding to. And despite what that post said, it actually looks like Kevitz is darn close to winning around Move 18. If you don't think Fischer could have played this better if it were a regular tournament game, that's not exactly a compliment. BTW, you do realize you're responding to a comment made 12 years ago? |
|
| Aug-13-25 | | stone free or die: I have some vague impression that Fischer mostly played the <King's Indian>, saving the Grunfeld for his highest-level opponents. But 4...d5 makes this a clear Grunfeld.
I wonder how unusual this really is for Fischer's exhibition play? . |
|
Aug-13-25
 | | perfidious: <Petrosianic....People tend to yawn out superlatives about Fischer without much thought or interest, and assume without looking that every one of his wins is the equivalent of Bambi Meets Godzilla.> While by no means a fan of some of Levy's approach to the great man's games in <How Fischer Plays Chess>, he was quite successful in steering away from all such hero worship. |
|
| Aug-13-25 | | Petrosianic: <perfidious>: <While by no means a fan of some of Levy's approach to the great man's games in <How Fischer Plays Chess>, he was quite successful in steering away from all such hero worship.> That's good because I've seen some YouTubers go totally gaga on that score. Things like "Fischer's God Move Causes Entire World To Melt Down." The problem is that people who just want to worship usually find it impertinent to actually learn anything. Speaking of Levy, I saw one of his videos a while back, where some kibitzer was asking something like "Who are you, a mere IM, to criticize GM moves?" My answer would be that if you DON'T do that, you'll never get any better. Even if your criticism is wrong, if you figure out why it's wrong, you'll still have learned something. |
|
| Aug-13-25 | | Petrosianic: <stone free or die>: <I have some vague impression that Fischer mostly played the <King's Indian>, saving the Grunfeld for his highest-level opponents.> At some point around 1960, after reverses against Matulovic, Benko, Sanguinetti, and Jauregui, Fischer seems to have decided not to play the King's Indian against anyone who was likely to play the Saemisch Variation against him. As a result he only faced the Saemisch once or twice after 1960. |
|
Aug-13-25
| | perfidious: <Petrosianic....At some point around 1960, after reverses against Matulovic, Benko, Sanguinetti, and Jauregui, Fischer seems to have decided not to play the King's Indian against anyone who was likely to play the Saemisch Variation against him. As a result he only faced the Saemisch once or twice after 1960.> Setting the 1992 match with Spassky aside, Fischer did see that pernicious creation 5.f3 somewhat more often that: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... |
|
| Aug-13-25 | | Petrosianic: <perfidious>: Okay, yeah, a couple more times. And I forgot that he played it pretty freely in the 1992 match. |
|
Aug-13-25
| | perfidious: Inter alia, Levy pointed out that Fischer was not at all likely to play either the KID or Gruenfeld in Reykjavik and discussed Fischer's switching of openings to stay one step ahead of the Russian analytical might, along with how his favoured 6.Bc4 went into the shades after Fischer vs Spassky, 1972. |
|
Aug-13-25
 | | moronovich: <Speaking of Levy, I saw one of his videos a while back, where some kibitzer was asking something like "Who are you, a mere IM, to criticize GM moves?" My answer would be that if you DON'T do that, you'll never get any better. Even if your criticism is wrong, if you figure out why it's wrong, you'll still have learned something.> Very good ! |
|
| Aug-14-25 | | FM David H. Levin: <<Petrosianic>: [...snip...] Speaking of Levy, I saw one of his videos a while back, where some kibitzer was asking something like "Who are you, a mere IM, to criticize GM moves?" My answer would be that if you DON'T do that, you'll never get any better. Even if your criticism is wrong, if you figure out why it's wrong, you'll still have learned something.> True. I'd add that when an annotator isn't subject to tournament constraints with regard to thinking time or elapsed time (that is, s/he has the luxury of setting aside a position and letting it percolate in the brain), this would tend to foster insights that might have escaped the players. Also, a rating reflects the results of games rather than the quality of the moves made. Even world-class players sometimes err in games that they played excellently overall, and a player who's generally less strong might nonetheless detect those slips. |
|
Aug-14-25
| | perfidious: Reading back some posts, I should like to note that my references have been to longtime IM David Levy, not Levy Rozman. Quite apart from that, I agree that questioning comments by others, as well as how a game or analysis has gone, is part of the learning process, even if one's views are disproven. |
|
Kibitzing
