|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-09-06 | | Rocafella: <ikipemiko> I don't understand =P |
|
| Nov-09-06 | | ikipemiko: sorry , my mistake... 33..R:g5 |
|
| Nov-09-06 | | Rocafella: Oh dear yeh didn't see that |
|
| Nov-09-06 | | Laskerschueler: A quick analysis by Rybka:
Fischer lost the game between move 25 and move 30. Look how the eval go up for White (even though - of course - a short time analysis by a computer is not the chess bible):25...Nc5 26.Qe2 Rd8 27.e5 Nd5 28.Qc4 Bf8 29.Raa1 Qb6 30.Qe2 Qc7 31.Nc4 Nc3 32.Qe3
= (0.00) Depth: 17 00:02:50
(after 25...e5 26.Ne2 - White´s move also not the best -):
26...Nc5 27.Bxc5 Qxc5 28.Nc1 Qc7 29.f5 gxf5 30.exf5 Rd8 31.Qf2 e4 32.Nc4 Bd4 33.Qh4
= (0.19) Depth: 17 00:03:15
(After 26...exf4 27.Nxf4)
27...Nc5 28.Bxc5 Qxc5 29.Nd3 Qc7 30.Nc4 Rd8 31.Qf2 Rf8 32.Ra7 Rb7 33.Ra4 Rb5 34.e5
² (0.37) Depth: 16 00:02:54
(After 27...Ne5 28.Nd3 Rb5 29.Nxe5)
29...Bxe5 30.Nc4 Nc6 31.Rd1 Bf4 32.Qf2 Bb7 33.Rd5 Rxd5 34.exd5 Ne7 35.Ra7 Nxd5 36.Rxb7
± (0.80) Depth: 17 00:04:24
And after 29...Qxe5 30.Nc4 the game is more or less over:
30...Qxg5 31.Be3 Qg3 32.Nd6 Be5 33.Bf4 Bxf4 34.Qxf4 Qxf4 35.Rxf4 Rbb8 36.Nxc8 Rxc8 37.Ra7
± (1.22) Depth: 17 00:01:52
|
|
| Jun-12-07 | | Marmot PFL: Evidently Fischer's only loss to a Closed Sicilian setup. (He had very few losses in any Sicilians). Spassky just outplayed him tactically, which had to hurt. |
|
| Jun-11-09 | | AnalyzeThis: Spassky was one of the all time greats with the Closed Sicilian. I think he should have tried it against Fischer in 1972. |
|
| Aug-03-09 | | WhiteRook48: 2 Ne2 was not expected |
|
| Aug-04-09 | | InspiredByMorphy: Was 22. ...e5 playable? 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.Ne2 Qxc2 winning a pawn. What am I missing? |
|
Aug-04-09
 | | beatgiant: <InspiredByMorphy>
White has 22...e5 23. fxe5 dxe5 <24. Qf2> and I don't see how Black can defend the kingside. |
|
| Aug-04-09 | | InspiredByMorphy: <beatgiant> 22. ...e5 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.Qf2 exd4 wins a piece. I understand Qf2 adds mounting pressure on the kingside but there is no immediate threat, is there? |
|
| Aug-04-09 | | Albertan: <InspiredByMorphy: <beatgiant>
22. ...e5 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.Qf2 exd4 wins a piece. I understand Qf2 adds mounting pressure on the kingside but there is no immediate threat, is there?? InspiredbyMorphy, the move 23...dxd5? is bad in your variation due to 24.Qf2 with a possible continuation being:
24. Qf2 f5 25. gxf6 Nc6 26. Ne6 Qd6 27. f7+ Kh8 28. Ng5 h6 29. Qh4 Qe7 30. Be3  (Analysis by the program Deep Rybka 3) Better is 23...Nxe5 with a possible continuation being: 24.Bh2 N7c6 25.Nxc6 Bxc6 26.d4 Bb5!? 27.dxe5!? Bxf1 28.Bxf1 Qxc2  |
|
| Aug-04-09 | | Everett: <all> After <22..e5 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.Qf2 exd4 25.Qxf7+ Kh8 26.Bxd4+ Ne5 27.Nc4 Nc6 28.Qxc7 Rxc7 29.Bxe5+ Nxe5 30.Nxe5> white is two pawns up, has a great square on c4 for the knight, and pressure on the a- and f-files. He can get his last minor piece in the game with h4 and Bh3 if need be. |
|
| Aug-04-09 | | InspiredByMorphy: <Albertan> <beatgiant> Thanks for the analysis. I see why 22. ...e5 23.fxe5 dxe5 is bad now. 24. Qf2 is strong. Interesting that 22. ...e5 23.fxe5 Nxe5 may have maintained equality and been a plausible continuation. |
|
| Aug-05-09 | | Everett: <InspiredByMorphy> ???? |
|
| Aug-07-09 | | InspiredByMorphy: <Everett> LOL - Thanks for the most vague reply I've ever received on this website. |
|
| Aug-11-09 | | Everett: <InspiredByMorphy> I offered variations to answer your questions at a time when others had not. It may have been an issue of timing, but I did not understand why you did not acknowledge my effort, at least. |
|
| Jun-13-11 | | wals: Rybka 4 x 64
Working backwards.
Black resigns after 43.Bf1, +6.83.
42...Bc6, + 6.83. Best, Rd8, +4.65.
Shortfall, 2.18.
36...Kf8, +4.65. Best, Re8, +2.80.
Shortfall, 1.85.
31..Qh4, +2.75. Best, Qg3, +2.18.
Shortfall, 0.57.
29...Qxe5, +2.18. Best, Bxe5, +1.23.
Shortfall, 0.95.
28...Rb5, +1.23. Best, Qd7, +0.77.
Shortfall, 0.46.
26...exf4, +1.06. Best, Nc5, 0.45.
Shortfall, 0.55.
25...e5, +0.70. Best, Nc5, +0.17.
Shortfall, 0.53.
The game was equal 25. dxe4, =0.17.
Total Black shortfall, 7.09.
Rybka analysis move 43.+6.83.
Niggling errors from move 25 weakened Black's game. |
|
| Jul-14-13 | | Ulhumbrus: It is hardly obvious that 28...Rb5 exposes the rook to a fork. However after 29 Nxe5 Qxe5 30 Nc4!! forks the queen as well as the square d6. One fork prepares another. |
|
| Mar-19-16 | | Conrad93: This is a Closed Sicilian. |
|
Aug-21-16
 | | PawnSac: < WhiteRook48: 2 Ne2 was not expected > no matter. I used to do it in rapid games just to nibble at my opponents clock. But after 3.d4 it transposes back to a normal open sicilian. It's a normal convention that may or may not signal the closed. |
|
Aug-21-16
| | PawnSac: Here's an example....
Fischer vs Spassky, 1992 |
|
| Sep-15-17 | | Saniyat24: Never seen a King's Indian Attack like this one, with White's bishop pair so much on the right...the knights were fighting, and the bishops stood guard...very nice game...! |
|
| Sep-15-17 | | SChesshevsky: I get the impression it was more a Closed Sicilian and an extremely passive one. Probably headed for a draw until Fischer appeared to miss the fork. More evidence, in my opinion, that Spassky didn't have much ambition to top Fischer in this exhibition. |
|
| Sep-16-17 | | RookFile: I think that sometimes he would try to bait Fischer into overextending himself. |
|
| Sep-08-18 | | jabinjikanza: Woooo my man terribly fallen |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
