| Feb-20-06 | | Nezhmetdinov: This is proper Speelman - thick glasses, mad eyes, on the edge - what a twerp/genius! |
|
| Jul-21-06 | | BobbyBishop: Qh5?? Youch! Pretty ballsy of Speelman to play the Schliemann in a candidates match no less. |
|
| Jul-22-06 | | euripides: <Pretty ballsy of Speelman to play the Schliemann in a candidates match no less.> This raises an interesting question: how well prepared is a strong grandmaster against this kind of sideline (not mainstream, but by no means unknown) ? It turns out Timman had played against the Schliemann several times though not always very comfortably: search "timman c63" |
|
| Jul-22-06 | | BobbyBishop: Indeed..I'm an avid Ruy player and many times have I screwed up against the Schliemann..I just don't see it that often and never bother to go over the lines which is why perhaps, even though white's stats against it say a lot, it's not a bad thing as a surprise weapon in the hands of a highly tactical player. Since Fischer played countless games of the Spanish, I thought I'd go over some of his games against it to see how he handled it and found only one! And it's a blitz game! I guess no one would dare play it against him in a tournament.
Very interesting in his notes on the game, BF says he knew the Schliemann well. Perhaps he wanted to be prepared in case someone tried it as a surprise in some crucial game. Too bad this was his only opportunity to show the fruits of his efforts. Fischer vs Matulovic, 1970 |
|
| Aug-28-06 | | sfm: <BobbyBishop: Qh5?? Youch!> But surprisingly there may not be a better move. Black threatens this deadly check on the c1-h6 diagonal. 29.Qd3,Bf4+ 30.Kb3,Qxd3 Or 29.c3,Bf4+ 30.Kc2,Qf2+ What to do?
This is why 27.-,b5! is actually a winning move. The bishop is in trouble and white loses at least a piece. |
|
| May-06-13 | | Dezaxa: I watched this game being played, and Timman took over an hour to reach move 17, even though this is all theory. Either he didn't know the opening well, or he was worried that JS had some dangerous innovation ready to unleash. Either way, it seems likely that his shortage of time contributed to his loss. |
|
May-06-13
 | | Troller: Trivia: From 1981 to 1991, Timman and Speelman played 17 games with a score of 9-8 in Speelman's favour. 10 games were drawn, while all the decisive 7 games were won by Black. |
|
| Mar-28-19 | | DonChalce: yeah, Fischer played 10.d4 here. |
|
Mar-28-19
 | | woldsmandriffield: Theory, for sure, but Speelman rehabilitated 7..Qg5 in this game. Previous GM practice had favoured 7..Qd5. This is an important stem game! |
|
Feb-09-22
| | Troller: <woldsmandriffield: Theory, for sure, but Speelman rehabilitated 7..Qg5 in this game. Previous GM practice had favoured 7..Qd5. This is an important stem game!> Karpov considers that Speelman had found the old game Timman vs H Bohm, 1980 where Timman won easily after 9..Qh4+?! This is a prime example of Speelman's specialty of well-prepared opening oddities that was rightfully feared by his opponents in the 1980's and 1990's. Timman would not know 20-year-old correspondence games that was at this time the foundation of the "theory" of this line. And indeed this game gave rise to some further tries, e.g. Adams vs Lautier, 1991 Not to mention that Timman two years later would face the Jänisch in a Candidate match again: Timman vs Korchnoi, 1991 |
|
| Feb-09-22 | | Alan McGowan: Another example of "well-prepared opening oddities" <Troller> is his use of the Budapest Defence in an Interzonal: Browne vs Speelman, 1985 |
|
Kibitzing
