Originally posted by greenpawn34hehe, actually GP i thought that your line of reasoning was rather excellent. There are some games in that Fischer Spassky match that will blow your mind. There is one game, i am not sure which one, where Fischer accepts two sets of doubled pawns, but Spassky can do nothing, it was simply positional genius on Fischers part. Can you recommend any good books, preferably with annotations on the 72 world championship? 🙂
Hi McRob.
"Greenpawn has demonstrated why Fischer would have given Karpov a whuppin."
Just my opinion, that's all. It's shared by others and others disagree.
Edit:
....and stop baiting and bullying the Kasparov fans. 😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'll also be interested in Greenpawn's answer - He usually has good advice in these areas. I hope I'm not stepping on GP's toes by throwing in a related link. Donaldson and Tangborn's recommendations are on pages 1 and 2 of this review:
Can you recommend any good books, preferably with annotations on the 72 world championship? 🙂
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review344.pdf
(Hasn't this question been asked before? And hasn't Greenpawn answered this question before? And didn't I post this link before? I really wish my memory was a bit better.)
Originally posted by Mad Rookafter reading your link Rook, i suppose it depends upon what you want. I wonder what the Purdy book is like, i like his writing style. I think i would go for the one with the most biographical detail as well as some instructive annotations. I am not really interested whether Spassky had a win at move 33 or whether Fischer salvaged a draw after blundering an equal position nor in reams of variations which prove it.
I'll also be interested in Greenpawn's answer - He usually has good advice in these areas. I hope I'm not stepping on GP's toes by throwing in a related link. Donaldson and Tangborn's recommendations are on pages 1 and 2 of this review:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review344.pdf
(Hasn't this question been asked before? And hasn't Greenpawn answered t ...[text shortened]... n before? And didn't I post this link before? I really wish my memory was a bit better.)
I have Purdy's Book, Reshevsky' s and Glirgorich.
Although at one time I had all the others.
Purdys reads the best, then Gligorich and then the cold Reshevsky.
With Purdy I have found he is either spot on and dead right or
shoots off an a very interesting and thought provoking angle.
Think this may be the game Robbie is mentioning.
Some light notes based on Purdy's comments.
In particular the bit about 2 pawns hold back 3.
I never thought of that when I looked more deeply at the game,
suppose because I knew an ending was never going to happen. 😉
Pity in a way that Spassky missed 27...Bxa4 it
was shaping up to be a classic.
B.Spassky - R.Fischer. Game 5 1972. 'The Rebel Within'
Fischer knew when to break the rules.
Originally posted by greenpawn34beautiful post 🙂 the whole post I mean
Hi emperor
"But while certainly a splash in the English speaking world,...."
In 1972 there were 100's of journalists from all over the world in Iceland.
Believe me emperor, you had to be there in'72 to see what a splash he made.
It was front page news, not buried on the puzzle pages like today.
The match reports opened the BBC's news as firs duate student, you do the maths.
You had to be there....you just had to be there.
Originally posted by greenpawn34yes GP, that was the game, totally amazing from a purely positional perspective, it has it all, its as if Fischer treats the two bishops, backward pawns, doubled pawns as a myth that needs to be dispelled, excellent post, thoroughly enjoyed it! Could not find Purdys book at a reasonable price, have ordered the Alexander one, as it seems to contain the most biographical details. Must have been amazing to have witnessed the whole thing.
I have Purdy's Book, Reshevsky' s and Glirgorich.
Although at one time I had all the others.
Purdys reads the best, then Gligorich and then the cold Reshevsky.
With Purdy I have found he is either spot on and dead right or
shoots off an a very interesting and thought provoking angle.
Think this may be the game Robbie is mentioning.
Some ligh . One line is....} 28. Qxa4 Qxe4 29. Kf2 Nd3+ 30. Kg3 Qh4+ 31. Kf3 Qf4+ 32. Ke2 Nc1[/pgn]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have the Alexander book which I think is a good read. There is a brief history of the world championship and some biographical history of the two players.
yes GP, that was the game, totally amazing from a purely positional perspective, it has it all, its as if Fischer treats the two bishops, backward pawns, doubled pawns as a myth that needs to be dispelled, excellent post, thoroughly enjoyed it! Could not find Purdys book at a reasonable price, have ordered the Alexander one, as it seems to contain the most biographical details. Must have been amazing to have witnessed the whole thing.
Enjoy!
I just started to read "endgame" so no comment there, but I like many here were enamored with BF in the seventies, he holds a special place in both US and world chess. Unfortunately he was both brilliant and insane- paranoid. Obviously such a brilliant mind causing its holder much grief is not uncommon in human history. Now hes gone but knowing more about him gives me a better picture of the man.My comments may seem like a yawned cliche so be it.
Originally posted by greenpawn34The first time I played through this game, I knew just enought chess to think that Spassky was surely winning. I remembered thinking "backward pawn, doubled rooks, this game is over!"
I have Purdy's Book, Reshevsky' s and Glirgorich.
Although at one time I had all the others.
Purdys reads the best, then Gligorich and then the cold Reshevsky.
With Purdy I have found he is either spot on and dead right or
shoots off an a very interesting and thought provoking angle.
Think this may be the game Robbie is mentioning.
Some ligh ...[text shortened]... . One line is....} 28. Qxa4 Qxe4 29. Kf2 Nd3+ 30. Kg3 Qh4+ 31. Kf3 Qf4+ 32. Ke2 Nc1[/pgn]
Such is the power of this game that you can still show it at your club, and the younger strong players will ridicule black's moves- until you show them the names of the players!
It has to be the inspiration for the phrase "First, break all the rules!"
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
All that is true in the position but white's white squared bishop is almost useless. Also, if white tries to attack blacks backward QBP he would have to take all his heavy pieces away from the kingside and black can easily defend the pawn. Chess is always a game of balance, give and take and calculating the various advantages and disadvantages in each position as both players attempt to reach their respective goals - Wow there's a mouth full. That's what makes the game so beautiful.
I remeber the game well from watching the match on the local PBS station channel 2 in Boston. I also wnet through multiple copies of Gligoric's book which I thought was great at the time.
Originally posted by Mad RookAfter expressing some refreshingly pleasant sentiments regarding Fischers chess ability, Dr Brady then states that he was examined by psychiatrists and was not deemed to be either schizophrenic nor delusional, yet he terms his book, descent into madness. He also states that Fischer was Jewish, which may have been the case ethnically, but spiritually he was a Christian.
Because of Robbie's great respect and admiration for Dr. Brady, I'll give another link. His Barnes & Noble talk in NYC on Feb 1.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Endgame
One admirable quality that Brady states is that he supported Fischer even at the cost of losing his Job with chess life magazine, in the Revshesky match which Fischer forfeited when the terms of agreement were breeched, not by Fischer, but by Revshesky and the organisers (spit ding!).
My own personal opinion is that Brady is bowing to the will of the publishers in terming Fischer both as mad (sensationalistic tabloid journalism) and as Jewish, he would have done better to honour Fischer with a self published book.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, you really need to read better at times. The book's subtitle is not "descent into madness". It is actually "...to the Edge of Madness", which isn't quite the same as your characterization.
After expressing some refreshingly pleasant sentiments regarding Fischers chess ability, Dr Brady then states that he was examined by psychiatrists and was not deemed to be either schizophrenic nor delusional, yet he terms his book, descent into madness. He also states that Fischer was Jewish, which may have been the case ethnically, but spiritually ...[text shortened]... urnalism) and as Jewish, he would have done better to honour Fischer with a self published book.
Originally posted by Mad RookIts still sensationalistic journalism. To the edge of madness, descent into madness, its essentially conveying the same message. Shame on Brady!
Robbie, you really need to read better at times. The book's subtitle is not "descent into madness". It is actually "...to the Edge of Madness", which isn't quite the same as your characterization.