Author: Larry S. Tamarkin
Date: 12:47:03 10/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
When I see a reference to a Fischer game, especially in a computer group forum, I usually get a little 'worked up', & immediately consult all of the classic material about Fischer that I can find. I looked for analysis about this game in, 'Fischer', by Alex Fishbein, 'How Fischer Plays Chess', by David levy, 'Fischer: His Approach To Chess', Perhaps the best middle game book ever written using just one players games as examples. I think the best quote however, comes from AVERBAKH, from the book, 'RUSSIANS Versus FISCHER', p.278, after move 18.b4! in the above game; "All of this has been played by Fischer with ease and speed. With a precision typical of Capablanca or Smyslov, he consistently improves his position. The last move fixes the pawn at a6 and restricts Black's freedom substantially." How often have we heard it said that the chief advantages that human Grandmasters have over their silicon counter-parts is this unique quality of being able to size up a position by it contour, and then make one perfect move after another with no where near the search depth of a computer, yet still avoiding blunder's, pressuring the opponents position, and finally reaching a point where it bust apart, and the player wins. Today their are more Grandmasters then ever who can do this, but only 3 or 4 (Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Shirov & Perhaps Ivanchuk spring to mind, although Ivanchuk is already too inconsistent in his results from tournament to tournament), who can do it consistently against everyone else to be considered the best of the best. I think with today's faster processors, and the continuing subtle improvements programmer's are making in their algorithms, that we are now entering the point in computer chess evolution, where only the very best players can still beat the programs consistently, and only then under conditions, with longer time controls... mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! On October 25, 1998 at 14:45:58, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote: >While looking over some Fischer games again, I found an interesting position: > >Fischer,R (2760) - Petrosian,T (2640) [B42] >Buenos Aires cf Buenos Aires (7), 1971 > >1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.0-0 d5 8.c4 Nf6 >9.cxd5 cxd5 10.exd5 exd5 11.Nc3 Be7 12.Qa4+ Qd7 >Played very daring from Petrosian's view. >Now my question is: What is wrong about playing Bb5+ in this position, like most >or all programs probably would? >Here's the position in FEN-format: >r1b1k2r/3qbppp/p4n2/3p4/Q7/2NB4/PP3PPP/R1B2RK1 w kq - 0 13 > >Of course black gets some initiative after the possible exchange sacrifice >(13.Bb5+ ab 14.Qxa8). >But I am not certain how much. >And I don't yet see a concrete white threat. > >Fischer's decicion to allow queen's exchange was sound anyway, giving him a nice >ending with a pawn majority at the queenside against an isolated black pawn on >d5 (becoming weak in the endgame). > >Does anyone of you have some GM comment on this position, or a program which >would *not* prefer to play Bb5? >Main variation? > >The game ended: >13.Re1 Qxa4 14.Nxa4 Be6 15.Be3 0-0 16.Bc5 Rfe8 17.Bxe7 Rxe7 18.b4 Kf8 19.Nc5 Bc8 >20.f3 Rea7 21.Re5 Bd7 22.Nxd7+ Rxd7 23.Rc1 Rd6 24.Rc7 Nd7 25.Re2 g6 26.Kf2 h5 >27.f4 h4 28.Kf3 f5 29.Ke3 d4+ 30.Kd2 Nb6 31.Ree7 Nd5 32.Rf7+ Ke8 33.Rb7 Nxf4 >34.Bc4 1-0 > >Regards >from Dirk
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.