|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-22-18 | | ChrisDior: After 42. f4 gxf4 43. g5 fxg5 44. Nf3 Rxa6 45. Rxa6 Kxa6 46. Nxg5 Ba5 47. Nxh7, Stockfish amazingly shows that Black wins with 47... Bd8! in all variations, but matters are not so clear if White just plays 47. Nf3. It seems that after 47... Bc7 48. h3 White has a fortress. We need a supercomputer to tell us the truth here. Maybe 42. f4 saves the game after all? |
|
| Oct-22-18 | | Boomie: <ChrisDior: After 42. f4 gxf4 43. g5 fxg5 44. Nf3 Rxa6 45. Rxa6 Kxa6 46. Nxg5 Ba5 47. Nxh7, Stockfish amazingly shows that Black wins with 47... Bd8! in all variations, but matters are not so clear if White just plays 47. Nf3. It seems that after 47... Bc7 48. h3 White has a fortress. We need a supercomputer to tell us the truth here. Maybe 42. f4 saves the game after all?> There is no rush to take the a-pawn. Try the odd looking 44...h5 45. Nxg5 Ba5. Black will soon be two pawns to the good with two protected passed pawns. That's got to be enough. |
|
| Oct-23-18 | | ChrisDior: Well, after 44...h5 45.Ng5 Ba5 46.Nf3, Black is forced to enter the same variation: 46... Bc7 47. Rb2 Ka6 48.Ra2 Kb7 49.Ra7 Ka7 50.h3. It seems that, without the h-pawns, Black is able to invade sooner or later; that is the case when Black takes on h7. But with both pawns on the board...? The kingside invasion is not possible, and the queenside one seems to fail. |
|
| Oct-23-18 | | Boomie: <ChrisDior: Well,...> OK. I see it now. Another position that the engines can't handle. Did you see this in a book? |
|
| Oct-24-18 | | ChrisDior: I love Fischerīs games, and Iīm trying to figure "the truth" out in some positions with "some" Stockfish help. I think that 42.f4 was suggested soon after the game ended. Itīs such an unbelievable resource that it has to be analysed in depth. As the member "atypical" pointed out, Kasparov gave a wrong line in his book on Fischer. I spent some time analysing with Stockfish, and it seems that Black can invade Whiteīs position in many (all?) lines if White takes the h7 pawn. Then it occurred to me that White could just leave that pawn alone and regroup, "closing" the kingside and thus preventing Blackīs invasion. So this question is puzzling me: is the game saved after 42.f4? |
|
| Oct-24-18 | | Boomie: <ChrisDior: I love Fischerīs games...> Every chess lover has to admire the elegance of Fischer's style. <atypical> posted that black can win by sacking the f-pawn (Petrosian vs Fischer, 1971 (kibitz #142)). This give the bishop the c1-h6 diagonal, which is huge. I haven't looked at it yet, but you may want to play around with f3 variations. |
|
| Oct-25-18 | | ChrisDior: As far as I have analysed with Stockfish, Black wins in the line given by "atypical" if White takes on h7 by playing Bd8; in fact, he wins in all variations no matter where White toys with his knight. It is amazing, but Black can infiltrate sooner or later. But if White refrains from taking on h7 and blocks with his knight on f3 and the pawn on h3, then I postulate it is a draw, and thus 42.f4 could have saved the game. |
|
| Oct-25-18 | | ChrisDior: We are so fortunate to analyse these historical games with such powerful hardware and software... Imagine Fischer had not won this 6th matchgame. Well, he could have crushed Petrosian in game 7 as he did. But one thing is for sure, as noted by Kasparov in his book on Fischer: when Bobby was leading, his strength increased notably and he started playing almost faultessly. This is how he crushed all of his opponents in the 1971/72 matches: after difficult starts, once he started feeling confident he became a chess machine. 4th game against Taimanov, 7th game against Petrosian or 6th game against Spassky: all of these masterpieces we admire so much. It was really difficult to face him then. It would have taken a fully grown Karpov to withstand his pressure. What a pity Bobby was just unable to push a single pawn after becoming world champion... |
|
| Oct-25-18 | | Boomie: Karpov was sad that he never got a shot at Fischer. He said that he didn't have a chance against him in the early 70's but maybe could get to him in the second match. Karpov's style is similar to Capablanca and Fischer in its quiet, methodical improvement of the position. He would have been Fischer's toughest opponent. |
|
| Oct-26-18 | | fabelhaft: <He said that he didn't have a chance against him in the early 70's but maybe could get to him in the second match> Or, rather, he said that he thought his chances of winning the first match were 40%, which isn't all that low. |
|
| Oct-26-18 | | ChrisDior: I think that Kasparov was right when he stated that Karpov had good chances of winning the 75 match. Fischer had been absent from competition for three years, and Karpov was really strong by then. Throw in the theoretical preparation and some killer novelties. The fact is that Fischer stopped playing in 72 most likely because of growing opening theory; you may have seen this video where he is on his way to Iceland from Japan explaining that. |
|
Oct-26-18
 | | diceman: <ChrisDior:
I think that Kasparov was right when he stated that Karpov had good chances of winning the 75 match.> If Kasparov said that later in life, he
had a vested interest in making Karpov look good. If he said Fischer would crush
Karpov, folks would ask, "How come you
didn't over your years of rivalry?" |
|
| Oct-27-18 | | Boomie: <Fischer had been absent from competition for three years...> I think Karpov et al was talking about an active Fischer. Naturally Karpov would probably be the favorite if Fischer played after being inactive for 3 years. But they can't be talking about that, can they? |
|
| Oct-27-18 | | ChrisDior: I think they always talk about the inactive Fischer when they estimate the possible outcome of such a match; then Karpov may have had a 60 % chance of winning the match. If you were to sit on the table the Karpov of 75 and the Fischer of 71, then it would be Fischer who had the 60 % chance of winning. Even Korchnoi in 75 would have had reasonable chances against Fischer; Fischer himself had declared that Korchnoi was a difficult opponent for him. Kasparov never crushed Karpov because no player on Earth could, not even Fischer if he had played. We all know Fischer was outstanding, but we should not underestimate Karpov; remember how he crushed Spassky in 73. And do not forget about opening preparation; Karpov would have had an edge here. This is what Bobby feared most and what probably prevented him from playing. We are talking about players in a class of their own. If Fischer had kept on playing, he could have been world champion until the eighties, but only accepting help from other players and assembling a good working team. That was the problem; he could only work properly alone, and that was just unfeasible in the new chess that had arrived. I am pretty sure he sensed that and, having fulfilled his greatest ambition, he decided to disappear. |
|
| Oct-27-18 | | ChrisDior: Sit AT the table, of course... : ) |
|
| Oct-27-18 | | 4tmac: Looks like a fortress to me. White may have to be "proactive" to keep the Black King from getting in along the first rank. eg: 42.f4! gxf4 43.g5 fxg5 44.Nf3 Rxa6 45.Rxa6
Kxa6 46.Nxg5 Ba5 47.Nf3 Bc7 48.h3 Kb5 49.Nd2! Kb4 50.Kc2!....maybe.... 
click for larger view |
|
| Oct-27-18 | | ChrisDior: Yes, that is the point. It looks like a dead draw, so the improvement for Black (if any) has to be found earlier. |
|
| Dec-25-18 | | ovalenti: I was really confused by a computer note to this game, so I'll provide some analysis here. Stockfish gives 4. e3 e5 5. e4!? as best which I found REALLY puzzling. Then I figured out what Stockfish didn't see (I think...) after 5... dxe4, Stockfish running low thinks 6. Nxe5?! is good, so finds 5... d4 to be best, when white can get his bishop outside the pawn chain. However, 6. Nxe5?! doesn't really work- after ...fxe5 7. Qh5+, black has the move ...Kd7! and it is actually black that has a very strong advantage (although the position is enormously complicated). |
|
| Jul-15-19 | | John Abraham: Fischer plays with the coourage and heart of a true warrior |
|
| Aug-20-19 | | gezafan: Yet another R+B vs R+N game for Fischer. He played these a lot and played them extremely well. |
|
Nov-20-19
 | | mckmac: Excellent video by Daniel King on this game.
https://youtu.be/IrSGnPA4nAA |
|
| Nov-21-19 | | dashjon: Just watch part 1 of D.Kings excellent video. I had to see how Fischer converted his position into a win. A very complete victory by Fischer. |
|
| Aug-11-20 | | pepechuy: The following position appears in the Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, volume 5, diagram 946:
click for larger viewIt is analyzed by Hort and Jansa, and is given as a possible variation from this game. I can see that after 42. f4 gf4 43.g5 fg5 44. ♘f3 ♖a6 45. ♖a6 ♔a6 46.♘xg5 a similar position appears, but I do not see how they get rid of the h-pawns.
In the same volume, diagram 945 is obviously related: 
click for larger viewIt is attributed to Hort and Jansa, from the magazine Sahmaty, 1971. Perhaps somebody has that magazine? And can show us which variation from this game they meant. |
|
| Aug-11-20 | | pepechuy: About my previous post.
I see that on moves 39, 40 and 41 (white's turn) the following moves can be inserted, to get rid of the h-pawns: h4 h6 gh5 gh5But I am not sure if they are good, or if the subsequent moves would still be good after the h-pawns are gone. |
|
Aug-11-20
 | | HeMateMe: I've reached the opinion that Bob was a better endgame player than me. How many GMs would give up the second rank (let your opponent's rook occupy it) in a Rook-pawn endgame? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
