|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| May-27-05 |
| hintza: <RookFile> Thanks for posting that, I knew of Tal's <great sense of humor> but I wasn't aware of that particular comment. |
 |
| May-27-05 |
| ArturoRivera: ranchogrande: There was a a tournament in which i played 4 of my 8n games that way, the others in which i had black where normally played, but i played 6 ruy Lopez as black tha tournament (when i played as whihe i aimed for a marshall gambit, i won all games with the ruy as black and as white, i just feel too confortable on the ruy lopez for stop playing it just beacause i am not black! :), i still trust on that sistem while playing!! |
|
| Jul-15-05 |
| aw1988: <RookFile> Brilliant, thanks. |
|
| Nov-07-05 |
| TripledPawns: Fischer vs. Kasparov can this be real? I have seen Fischer challenge Karpov to FRC recently, and he even issued a challenge to Topalov, but Fischer and Kasparov together, that would be amazing! http://www.GothicChess.com/news.html is the link. |
|
| Nov-07-05 |
| CeeFoR: that's a really bad photoshopped image |
|
| Jan-06-06 |
| rubbermeetsroad: This is quite a brilliant game by
Tal. The issue is mainly development.
I suppose on 22...Qg5, either
23 Qxg5 hxg5 24 Rxf5, unless
23 Qxc7! works, which it well might.
On 22...Qg7, which also still hits
the knight, I suppose it can just
move ( 23 Ne2) or maybe 23 Nd4!
|
|
May-02-06
 |
| whatthefat: From Tal's supreme performance in the 1959 Candidates tournament, this is arguably the most brilliant game. Tal makes no real inaccuracies, whereas he exploits every slip of his opponent's to perfection. Altogether, a really classy performance. |
|
Jul-11-06
 |
| KingG: Can someone explain the move 12...Bf6 to me? I don't know much about these types of positions, but i don't like the idea of voluntarily giving up my dark-squared bishop. And in fact, it seems to me that the disappearance of this defensive piece ends up costing Black dearly. |
|
| Jul-11-06 |
| RookFile: Well, Gufeld would agree with your sentiments exactly. He loved the g7 bishop. It probably makes sense to get rid of the g7 bishop, but keep the position closed with black, with pawns on the dark squares. Or you can keep it and open the position for the bishop. I think this game shows you shouldn't do both. |
|
Jul-11-06
|
| KingG: Sure, but it's not like Fischer had much choice in the matter. He had to play ...f5 eventually, or he has no counter play, but once he does that, Tal will obviously open the position. If Fischer had somehow already played ...f5-f4, then i could see the logic in exchanging the bishop, but not in the position in the game. Then again, i'm not Fischer. Is this kind of bishop exchange played in other variations of the KID? |
|
| Jul-11-06 |
| ughaibu: Here's Tal with black as far as Qe8: O Neikirch vs Tal, 1958 |
|
Jul-11-06
|
| KingG: Tal's definitely approach makes more sense to me than Fischer's. I would still like to know what the reasoning is behind exchanging off the bishop. Any ideas? |
|
Jul-11-06
|
| whatthefat: <KingG>
Fischer's 12...Bf6 here was an attempt to improve on the line played against Tal earlier in the same tournament: Tal vs Fischer, 1959. It's an interesting, if unconventional plan.Fischer apparently spent 10 hours preparing the variation. Tal joked that the result of this was only to leave Fischer tired. |
|
Jul-11-06
|
| KingG: <whatthefat> Thanks. I'm still not sure what the bishop exchange is supposed to achieve though. I didn't get the impression from the game you posted that White's bishop is particularly good, or the Black's was especially bad. |
|
| Jul-11-06 |
| RookFile: I think it's a 'negative' strategy.
My understanding was, around this time, there was almost a view that the King's Indian was a forced win for white. The idea was, that white could orchestrate the exhange of pieces such that black would be left with some terrible endgame, for example good knight versus 'bad' g7 bishop - bad because black had all his pawns on black squares. The Petrosian variation operated on this strategy. Take for example the positon after 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 0-0 6. Nf3 e5 7. d5 a5 8. 0-0 Na6 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bh4 Qe8 11. Ne1 Nc5 What do you do with white? Not 12. f3, black gets excellent counterplay with 12....Nh5 and 13.... f5. No, you play 13. Bxf6 Bxf6 14. Bg4 Bxg4 15. Qxg4.
I think they used to be really worried about this position as black, certainly in the days of Fischer and Tal. Maybe white is succeeding in his plans, and black wishes he didn't have the dark squared bishop. But then later, it was determined that black is ok here after 15.... Bd8! followed by ...c6. But Fischer didn't know this then, and wanted to make sure he didn't get left with a 'bad' bishop in an endgame. |
|
| Jul-11-06 |
| aw1988: <My understanding was, around this time, there was almost a view that the King's Indian was a forced win for white.> Not in 1959! |
|
Jul-11-06
|
| whatthefat: Well, the Petrosian Variation was certainly causing black a bit of a crisis at this time - white won 5-0 in the games played at the 1959 Candidates. |
|
Jul-11-06
|
| KingG: <RookFile> Thanks, that was quite interesting. Still, it's surprising that Fischer would play the KID, only to become so negative later on. Why no just play something like the QGD if all he wanted was equality? |
|
| Jul-12-06 |
| RookFile: Yes, I forget whether it was Petrosian, or Korchnoi that said this, but he said this around this time: "If somebody wants to play the King's Indian defense, you shouldn't prevent him!" |
|
| Jul-12-06 |
| RookFile: I think that Tal's choice of the Petrosian system for this game was something of a surprise, he more typically played the Saemish variation. My memory from My 60 Memorable Games is, Fischer later used a better system against this Petrosian system that in fact involved keeping the g7 bishop: F Olafsson vs Fischer, 1959 |
|
Jul-16-06
|
| KingG: Interestingly Fischer repeated his ...Bf6 experiment against Reshevsky a few years later, and lost again. Reshevsky vs Fischer, 1961 However, it can't be all that bad because many years later Kasparov used a similar idea to beat Gulko. The difference is he didn't try and play ...f5 afterwards(keeping the position closed), and he had already played ...a5, and ...Na6(slowing down White's play on the Q-side). Gulko vs Kasparov, 1995 So probably there is nothing wrong with ...Bf6 in itself, it's just best not to open the position after the exchange of bishops. I'm not sure how important it is to have played ...a5, and ...Na6, but maybe it gives Black enough time to create some counter-play on the K-side. |
|
Jul-17-06
|
| whatthefat: Fischer does seem to have believed in the line. In fact, the example given above by <RookFile>, F Olafsson vs Fischer, 1959, isn't really conclusive, since Olafsson deviated first with 11.g4, and under these circumstances, the ...Bf6 plan no longer looks tenable. Fischer was certainly known to stick to his openings through thick and thin. I believe Tal even commented on how this aspect of Fischer's play cost him in this tournament. |
|
| Jun-08-07 |
| sanyas: Obviously 12...f5 is bad due to 13.exf5  xf5 (not 13...gxf5? 14. h5) and White owns e4. "After the game it was revealed that the young American had spent ten hours analysing this variation. Alas, it did not improve the variation, but it left Fischer tired." - Tal. Apparently 21...cxb4 was the crucial error, and Fischer should have played 21... g7 instead. |
|
May-20-08
 |
| ChessYouGood: Tal demolishes Fischer in his pet Kings Indian. Too many useless knight moves against aggression himself. Also, maybe Fischer should have spent less time trying to win the B and C pawns and more time activating his light squared bishop. Fischer may have been young at this event but he was already a hot shot in the USA. Great to see Tal spank him. |
|
| Jun-24-08 |
| Jesspatrick: The thinking behind exchanging the dark squared Bishop was probably based on this. Since White has committed himself on the queenside with 12.b4, he will avoid meeting a later ...f5 with exf5 which would make the Bishop very powerful. Instead, White will answer ...f5 with f3 effectively imprisoning the dark squared Bishop. In light of this, there is good reason to trade off that piece. As others have observed, after this Bishop is traded off, it's better to keep things closed. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
sac: 23.Re6
