|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-26-14 | | The Rocket: <I think its a safe bet that Spassky
didnt "prep" the Pirc, Queen Pawn,
or the English from Fischer.
...or even Nh5 in the Benoni.>
In the openings they DID anticipate, Spassky forgot Gellers preparation on several occassions. |
 |
| Apr-26-14 | | The Rocket: The Spassky team did foresee queens pawn openings from Fischer. Spassky replied: "in that case I play the Tartakower, and he(Fischer) has nothing". Didn't work out that way. Fischer won quite nicely.. But Spassky sported a solid record with the Tartakower variation before the match. |
|
| Apr-26-14 | | ewan14: With an unsound Bb5
Did Geller know the refutation of this at the Fischer Spassky match , or was it later ? I am sure Geller had told Spassky about Nh5
in the Benoni
All very strange |
|
Aug-24-14
 | | Zhbugnoimt: Where did Spassky miss the win? |
|
Aug-24-14
| | Zhbugnoimt: If he had one, which he might not have. |
|
| Sep-18-14 | | RookFile: No wins for Spassky in this game, although he could have played out the endgame to try to make Fischer suffer more. |
|
| Oct-19-14 | | Ke2: Amazing that the rooks just bounce off the solid structure and outposted knight. Qe5 is really strong. I can't figure out why Spassky traded queens, Qf2 seems a better try. Maybe at such a level of play the draw was already trivial. |
|
| Mar-11-15 | | Howard: So did Spassky have a win in the adjourned position ? According to my extensive research, Rybka and Stockfish weren't around back in those days, but then Spassky and the Soviet squadron would have literally all night to analyze the adjourned position. |
|
| Mar-21-15 | | Howard: Attn, AvlerKupp (or anyone else with an engine revved up and ready to go), but I'm beating the drum again, regarding this game! Did Spassky have any probable win in this game? He was, after all, the exchange up and he definitely blundered into a three-fold repetition. |
|
| Mar-24-15 | | Howard: Still beating the drum.......... |
|
| Mar-24-15 | | disasterion: <Howard>: The short answer seems to be, no. I left Stockfish to ponder the position after 41. Rfc2 (the sealed move), and it finds nothing better for white. 41...g5 is given as +0.23 in white's favour at depth 34. On a cursory look through the game from 22. Bxf8 onwards, there's never more than half a pawn advantage to white, and no clear winning line that Spassky missed. |
|
Mar-24-15
 | | morfishine: This is all exciting stuff, but Spassky "blew" his preparation in preparing nothing for Fischer's Alekhine defense, not once, but twice ***** |
|
| Mar-25-15 | | RookFile: Fischer had a pawn for the exchange. Then, ask yourself just how scared you are of the isolated e4 pawn. A draw is a perfectly expected outcome. |
|
| Jun-03-17 | | nummerzwei: In his comments, Gligoric stresses the importance of manoeuvring the knight to c6, where it blocks White's rooks from invading via the c-file. The only way to break through this barrier is to play b4-b5 (e.g. 42.Rb2), but this leads to an exchange of the queenside pawns, and thus a draw. |
|
| Jun-29-18 | | Petrosianic: <Howard>: <Did Spassky have any probable win in this game? He was, after all, the exchange up and he definitely blundered into a three-fold repetition.> In addition to having a pawn for the exchange, Black had the advantages of a) a solid position with no penetration points for the White Rooks, b) White's weak e4 pawn, and c) Black's very active Rook. All that combined should provide full compensation. To be sure, Spassky could have kept playing, but it's hard to see any promising winning attempts. What winning plan might he try? |
|
| Jun-29-18 | | Howard: You're probably right. But I distinctly recall Lombardy's saying that even though Spassky might not have had a forced win, he certainly could have "made Bobby suffer for a long time". Spassky, incidentally, was reported to have appeared startled when Fischer "gleefully went to the referee" to claim a draw. In other words, the three-fold was apparently an error on his part. |
|
| Jul-06-18 | | Hobobill30: According to marin (pirc master) timman found 21...Rfc8!N ....because on move 24 Qf4!N "signifagent improvement over the game because after qxf4, 25,rxf4-..g5!? because trying to continue in fashion to the game results in 25...knight d7 ,26 rf2-rc1+ 27Kh2-KNe5- now white has 28 f6! partly spoiling blacks stability" back to ..g5 26 rff3-rc5 27rc3-re5 28 rc7-rxe4 29 rxb7- a5 30ra7-re5 31rc3 with small + saying whites queenside+ activity offers some prospect." although Marin shows a line after timmans 21 thats fine for black. this qoute is from marins pirc defence GM repertoire book |
|
| May-20-19 | | Howard: Personally, I think it's misleading for the website to state that this game is analyzed by Stockfish. If you click on the link, you'll see that it's hardly analyzed at all !!! |
|
May-20-19
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
That film that Mark relates to (see above) is 'Harry Brown' here is a piece about the chess in the film and a clip of the chess scene mentioning game 7 and the Pirc. http://streathambrixtonchess.blogsp... *** |
|
May-20-19
 | | harrylime: Robert Fischer in CRUISE mode here. lol |
|
May-20-19
| | Sally Simpson: ***
It is possible the script changed the 'game 17' to game 7 for the flow of the conversation, he says it is match 7 - not game 7. and 'Fischer won' could have meant Fischer won as in winning the title. That is a lot of 'coulds' maybe it was just a cock up like that villain who was only meant to blow the bloody doors off. *** |
|
May-20-19
| | harrylime: <Sally Simpson: ***
It is possible the script changed the 'game 17' to game 7 for the flow of the conversation, he says it is match 7 - not game 7. and 'Fischer won' could have meant Fischer won as in winning the title.That is a lot of 'coulds' maybe it was just a cock up like that villain who was only meant to blow the bloody doors off. ***>
whatever .
In THIS game Bobby WAS on AUTOPILOT.
lol lol lol |
|
May-20-19
| | harrylime: Robert Fischer is the GREATEST Chess player of ALL TIME. When Bobby goes into CRUISE CONTROL. ... er .... he goes into CRUISE CONTROL . lol |
|
| May-20-19 | | RookFile: <"I was the strongest from 1964 to 1970, but in 1971 Fischer was already stronger." - Boris Spassky> Humorous. He doesn't let a match loss against Petrosian get in the way. |
|
May-20-19
| | harrylime: <RookFile: <"I was the strongest from 1964 to 1970, but in 1971 Fischer was already stronger." - Boris Spassky>
Humorous. He doesn't let a match loss against Petrosian get in the way.> Spassky was as cool a chess champion as you'll get. It took a Fischer to bring him down.
History does him no justice. And the Soviets and Ruskies like to re write history. |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing