< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Feb-23-24 | | andrea volponi: 25 e6! Nc4 -Qe2! Ra5! -b4 Rxc5 -bxc5 fxe6 -f5! e5 -Nb5 c6 -Nc3 gxf5 -gxf5 Qxf5 -Nxd5 cxd5 -Rxd5 Qf4 -Qh5 Ra8 -Rf1 Qxf1+ -Kxf1 Ne3+ -Ke2 Nxd5 -Bg3 Nc3+ -Kd3 E4+ -Kc4 a3 -Qg6 Kh8 -Be5 Bxe5 -Qxh6+ Kg8 -Qe6+ Kh7 -Qxe5 a2 -Qxe7+ perpetual. (=). |
|
Jun-11-24 | | Retired Patzer: After 69.Rc3+ Kd4 it almost looks like White has winning chances with 70.Be7, aiming for f6 to help blockade the Black queenside pawns while retaining protection of his own g-pawn.
But 70....Ke5 pretty much forces the bishop back to f8. |
|
Jul-10-24
 | | Chessmaletaja: Poor Boris. I am so sad. |
|
Jul-11-24
 | | Chessmaletaja: In the 13th game of the 1972 match, Spassky had white pieces but played the opening poorly. Interestingly, Fischer grabbed White's pawn on the edge of the board—the a-pawn—spending several tempos. But Fischer did not touch White's central pawn, e5, which is essential for White's attack in the Alekhine defence. Perhaps Fischer was afraid of opening the lines and diagonals blocked by that pawn. White had a typical Spassky-style attack. Tactical analysis shows that Black could take the pawn e5 with 20...♗xe5 or with 21...♗xe5. Instead, Fischer played 21...♕d7 and after 22 ♖ad1!, instead of playing 22...♗xe5 made a mistake 22...♖fe8?. <The position after 22...♖fe8:>  click for larger viewNote that on 23 ♘c5? Black has the answer 23...♕d5!. However, Spassky missed here a strong move 23 b3!. The idea is that after 23...♗d5 the square d5 is occupied, and White will play 24 ♘c5!. However, Black has a strong answer 23...c5!, after which the position is approximately equal. In the game, Spassky played such slow or passive moves as 23 f4, 25 ♕c3, 26 ♔h2 and 27 ♘d3. As a result, Black dissipated White's attack and after 29...♕xd6 30 exd6 ♗xc3 31 bxc3 Black had simply an extra pawn in the complex endgame:  click for larger viewThe analysis of that fantastic endgame of the 13th match game needs a separate book. Above, I have used the book
Karoly, Tibor "Fischer - Spassky 1972" (2022) |
|
Aug-12-24 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: 75. Bxf2 Rd1 76. Ra4 Rb1+ 77. Kc3 Kxf2 wins
75. Rf4 Rxd4 76. Rxd4 Kg2 77. Rd1 f1=Q 78. Rxf1 Kxf1 79. Ka1 Ke2 80. Kb2 Kd3 81. Ka1 Kc4 82. Kb2 a1=Q+ 83. Kxa1 Kc3 84. Kb1 b2 wins |
|
Aug-13-24 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: <agadmator says that Gligoric mentioned 25. e6 in his book of the match, but I don't remember that and certainly do not recall that Gligoric rated it a missed winning move.> He did mention it!
He wrote:
25 Q-B3!?
25 P-K6! was strong and more dangerous.
White probably did not like 25 ... N-B5, but after 26 Q-B1 there would be good counterplay ahead for him. |
|
Oct-21-24 | | andrea volponi: 25 e6!(la migliore mossa)...Nc4(...a3-f5!=)- Qe2 Nxb2 -Nf5 Nxd1 -Nxg7 Kxg7 -Qe5+ f6! -Qxd5 Nc3(la mossa di agadmator ;30...Nb2 -g5!( migliore di 31Qd4 (smyslov) Qd8!=)Qc4 g5 -fxg5 hxg5 -Bxg5 fxg5 -Qxc3+Kh7 -Re5(Qd3 ⩲/+-) Rg8!-Ne4 Qd8! -Nxg5 = parità. |
|
Oct-21-24
 | | offramp: Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 (kibitz #55) <WMD: <Timman's match book, crediting Smyslov, indicates the line 25.e6 Nc4 26.Qe2! as being critical. "The plan is 26...Nxb2 27.Nf5!, a very original attacking idea. The former World Champion stops here with the statement that White has a fierce attack. No doubt he had the variation 27...Bc4 28.exf7+ Kxf7 29.Qxe7+ Rxe7 30.Rxe7+ Kf8 31.Nd7+ in mind.">> <andrea volponi: 25 e6!(la migliore mossa)...Nc4...>
 click for larger view
We may never know the best move.
If Spassky had been on good form he might have played 25. e6.
Fischer was on great form. He would have defended no problem.
But who knows? |
|
Oct-21-24
 | | harrylime: I'm thinking this game was the template for Alekhine's defence players for years to come. Invaluable for theory. An extraordinary game.
An extraordinary match. |
|
Oct-22-24 | | Olavi: <Invaluable for theory> Hardly; as every commentator pointed out, Spassky played a completely innocuous, unambitious opening... |
|
Oct-22-24 | | Petrosianic: <Olavi: <Invaluable for theory> Hardly; as every commentator pointed out, Spassky played a completely innocuous, unambitious opening...> You're spoiling the illusion. Harry says he doesn't even play chess, he's only interested in Fischer The Pop Culture Icon. From that POV the more famous the game, the more monumental it must be in every way. In his heart, this would be the MCO game of the year, if he knew what MCO was. |
|
Nov-05-24 | | andrea volponi: 25 e6! smyslov followed his idea with 25...Nc4 -Qe2! (Qc1gligoric 26...a3! -+) 26...Nxb2 -Nf5!! when white has a very strong attack . it seems kasparov,timman, soltis,muller,among others,think that black problaby loses this position,but 27Nxd1!! -Nxg7 Kxg7 -Qe5+ f6! -Qxd5 Ne3! (30...Nb2 smyslov -31 g5!!+- )-Rxe3 a3 - Re1 a2 -Ra1 Ra5 leads to an unbalaneed but roughly equal position. |
|
Nov-05-24 | | andrea volponi: 2 5 e6! a3!? (suggested by prins )-26 f5! (timman )Nc4 -white coold have thrown every thing at black king -27 Qf4 Nxb2 -f6 Bxf6 -Bxf6 exf6 -Qxf6 Qd8 -Qxf7+ Kh8 -Nf5 gxf5 -Rxd5 Qxd5 -Qf6+ but white must settle for a draw by perpetual check. |
|
Jan-06-25 | | N.O.F. NAJDORF: After
25. e6 Nc4 26. Qe2 b6 27. Nf5 gxf5 28. Rxd5 bxc5 29. Qxc4 Bd4+ 30. Kh2 fxe6 31. Rxf5 Qa6 32. Qa2 c4 33. Rh5 Bg7 34. g5 Qb5 white cannot win |
|
Mar-17-25 | | frankumber: it is without a doubt one of the finest games played in a championship match. Even with the computer aided examination of the missteps and outright errors playing this game in the heat of the moment must have been terrifying. |
|
Mar-18-25 | | Petrosianic: <frankumber: it is without a doubt one of the finest games played in a championship match. Even with the computer aided examination of the missteps and outright errors playing this game in the heat of the moment must have been terrifying.> If by "fine game" you mean one of the most dramatic fights, it is that, on the same kind of level as Capablanca-Alekhine, Game 11, or Topalov-Kramnik, Game 2. But if you mean best played game, it's certainly not that. You alluded to the missteps and errors yourself. If I were to rate Fischer's wins in this match by quality of play, I'd make it something like this: Game 6
Game 10
Game 3
Game 13
Game 21
Game 5
Game 8 |
|
Jul-08-25 | | Garech: It still surprises me that game 6 is given such high praise in the 1972 match when this game is there to contend with it! Truly spectacular. |
|
Jul-08-25 | | Petrosianic: <Garech>: I'm surprised you're surprised. |
|
Jul-08-25
 | | moronovich: I am not surprised you´re surprised. |
|
Jul-08-25
 | | Sally Simpson: Surprisingly I agree with Petrosianic. Game 6. The highfalutin will go for game 13 which should come as no surprise. |
|
Jul-08-25 | | Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson>: <The highfalutin will go for game 13 which should come as no surprise.> Game 13 is the most epic battle, much like Game 11 of Capablanca-Alekhine, or Game 17 of Karpov-Korchnoi. But part of what makes battles epic is that they tend to have an ebb and flow to them, with first one player then the other having an edge. And it requires mutual mistakes to swing that way. We can criticize some of Spassky's moves in Game 6 (what's up with d4?). But the mistakes aren't mutual. Fischer played great in that game. |
|
Jul-09-25
 | | Sally Simpson: <Hi Petrosianic> You stopped the running 'surprise' gag. Never mind I think it had run our of steam. All the games are good, this one is a diamond. But my favourite in game 6 due to the first move! and what followed. Spassky too thought it was good. After game 6 he joined in on the applause. In game 6 Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 this position arose.  click for larger view and White played
6. e3...Ehh? It must be 6.e5 h6 7.Bg5...this does not look right. And I wonder how many people had misread the first move. I did and played 1.e4 instead of 1.c4 from the moves in a newspaper. (another surprise.)
That is the position you get from game 6 if you start off with 1.e4. This was predicted by 'Chess Review' in June 1972. 'But Boris, what if he does not play 1.P-K4?' https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo... |
|
Jul-09-25 | | Petrosianic: Gligoric gave 1. c4 an exclam in Games 6 and 8, but not in 12 and 14. These days they make it sound like c4 was a total thunderbolt out of the blue, but there were rumblings on the horizon that Fischer might try something like this. He'd already played 1. c4 against Polugaevsky, and 1. b3 against Mecking. He even played 1. d4, albeit in a Blitz game. The Chess Life & Review cover wasn't psychic, just making an educated guess from what we'd already seen. As for what Boris would do, it was no great surprise, to Fischer or anybody else, that he'd play the Tartakower Variation, which he'd never lost with. It would have been really cool if he'd played the Tarrasch Defense, which he'd played several times in the 1969 World Championship, but being caught off guard he stuck to what he knew best. I saw a subtle, hidden meaning in 1. c4. Fischer had been on record saying that 1. d4 led to nothing. So, how do you play a Queen's Pawn opening without having to eat crow on that statement? A: Play it by transposition. I don't think that quite resolves the issue, but probably that's what Fischer was thinking. |
|
Jul-09-25
 | | Sally Simpson: < Hi Petrosianic> Of course back then no net or game databases, no instant news, the only thing I had on Fisher was a 1969 copy of M60Mg's with chunks of it going over my head. 'best by test.' I could understand. I've checked a few books that came out soon after the match ( four appeared within 2-3 weeks of the match ending) all used 'surprised' or 'unexpected' in the first note.
Reshevsky (his book pub 1972) writes; "...this was perhaps the first time he ever resorted to this move." (even he was unsure.) These days; click-click on a mouse and you can see every recorded move by Fischer. Back then it was what you knew and there no way to find out unless you fired off a snail mail letter to a magazine. Or in some cases, made up what you think happened.
Sammy continues; 'Spassky, after taking some time to get over the shock of the unexpected move..."
Was Sammy there, I do not think so.
I wondered if he was so paid a visit my Uncle Ted's site. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... One of the Reshevsky books on the match (he had his name on three of them) may have been ghost written. (maybe by someone who was there!) |
|
Jul-09-25 | | Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson>: <Of course back then no net or game databases, no instant news, the only thing I had on Fisher was a 1969 copy of M60Mg's with chunks of it going over my head. 'best by test.' I could understand.> In the pre-internet age, USCF published lots of pamphlets. Not nearly big enough to be considered books, but they could be very informative. Many of them were opening treatises, like Larsen's "Why Not the Philidor Defense?" (If you read it, you'll find out why not.) But one I still have somewhere is a booklet called "Fischer 1970", which, as it sounds, contains every game Fischer played that year. No annotations, just a sentence or so of descriptions of each game. Even without notes it was enormously valuable. You'd find the games you were interested in and go over them on your own. One of the first things I did when I bought it was to see what openings and opening moves Fischer had played that year. When that first omnibus book of Fischer's games came out, someone wrote a letter to Larry Evans asking if Fischer had missed an easy win in this game: Fischer vs A Saidy, 1957 Larry confirmed that he had (30. Qh6!), but defended the lapse by opining that there was something morbid about publishing EVERY available game from a player. That's definitely not a comment that's stood the test of time. All this is not to say that 1. c4 wasn't a surprise. Of course it was. But not a total shock. More like something people including that cartoon artist had thought about, and decided <probably> wouldn't happen. |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·
Later Kibitzing> |