|
|
Click HERE to see this game in java-script replay format.
See
my letter, (The "Best Question" in Larry Evans' column.); in the
DECEMBER issue,
(Dec. 2003; page # 12); of
'Chess Life' magazine ... as
concerns this game.
This is a wonderful game that was played between these two contestants in 1967.
I have been aware of this game for a long, long time ... probably since before I was a teen-ager.
NOW
LET ME MAKE SOMETHING PERFECTLY CLEAR:
I would sooner -
# 1.) Rip up the original 'Declaration of Independence' ... ...
...
# 2.) Take a can of spray-paint to the Mona Lisa ... ... ...
# 3.) Or take a flame-thrower to the Sistine Chapel ... ...
...
than I would trivialize any game of chess played by Bobby Fischer!!!
***
Even worse ... would be to do a poor analysis job ... especially on such a historically important game.
(Very important to chess players,
anyway.)
This is a game that has been analyzed and annotated by dang near everybody. Its in virtually every book about Fischer or the ones that analyze his games. Plus it is in many other books as well, especially a lot of opening books. (See the bibliography at the end of the game.)
I
have been (actively) working on annotating this game for OVER SIX
YEARS!!!
(I started in approximately 1996 or '97.) Of course it has not been a continuous
effort.
There
were many reasons that working on this game took so long. The first was it was
not something I could dedicate all my time to. The second reason was VERY
important ... at least to me. I felt I knew or understood little about the
"Velimirovic Attack," the opening that was used in this particular
game. (I have since spent a period of around two years working on this opening, sometimes
2-4 hours a day.) I wanted to be able to say I at least had a basic grasp of the
ideas and principles of this whole line. I now think I do. (Click here, here,
or here
to see some examples. The first link given here is quite in depth and contains a
fairly decent opening survey.) The third reason that this game took so long is
that I took 100 or so Fischer games and decided to study them fairly deeply. (I
worked 2-3 months on just one game alone!) This project took OVER 4 years to
complete. Of course another reason was I wasted a lot of time playing chess on
the
Internet, and I also spent a great deal of time on other projects, like
getting my (All-time) ... ... ... "Best Games" page fleshed out
... and getting my personal list of the ten best games of all time finished ... and
DEEPLY annotated. (Click here
to see some of that work.)
---> There were other reasons this project was delayed,
but I shall not go into them here.
Another curious thing that happened for me during my development of this game was that I had lost my original notes of this game. They were scrawled in the margins of a book that I had, well ... gotten away from me - many years earlier, but somehow I ... almost miraculously ... regained them. (I will cover this in my introductory notes to the game.)
Virtually
every annotator has taken a whack at this game. Gligoric, Bronstein, Fischer,
Geller, Botvinnik & Flohr, etc.
(The list is almost a "Who's Who"
of the greats of chess.)
Click HERE to see an explanation of some of the more common symbols that I use while annotating a game.
************************************************
This is mostly a text-based page, with only a few diagrams. Therefore, you will probably need a chess board.
*****************************************************************************************************
Many consider this to be one of one of Geller's finest victories. In
truth, it is a flawed game ...
but I think it is no less enjoyable nor exciting because it is not perfect.
(From Skopje, YUG; 1967.)
This is also a classic game ... for a wide variety of reasons.
It has been reprinted numerous
times. And Bobby Fischer did an absolutely superb job of annotating
this contest in his
classic book. ("My 60 Memorable Games.")
***
The ratings are dead-on accurate, and come from Jeff Sonas's
web site.
(NOTE: The ratings are not the official FIDE ratings for that period in time.)
This game has a VERY funny story behind it, at least for me. I had
analyzed this game as a
youngster, but did not have access to my original notes, as they were written
in the margin of
my copy of Bobby's book - which I had lost track of over the years. Then after I had been
working on this game for a while, I walked into a used bookstore {in 2001 or 2002} and found
a very
beat-up copy of Fischer's classic. I did not know it had been mine ... someone had used
white-out (or
paint) to cover my name. I purchased it and took it home. {They only wanted like
a buck-fifty.} Naturally I was delighted to find my old notes still in the margins!
*****************************************************************************************************
One of the most interesting
games
in chess. Dozens of chess authors
have written about this game ...
and
most have gotten it dead wrong.
(This includes Bobby Fischer himself.)
(See Fischer's now classic book,
"My Sixty {60} Memorable Games.")
But despite the game's flaws, it
continues to intrigue us - - -
perhaps as a shining example of
the power of the fascination of a
struggle of nearly infinite complexity.
*********************************************************************************************************************************
1.e4 c5;
2.Nf3 d6; 3.d4 cxd4; 4.Nxd4 Nf6; 5.Nc3 Nc6; {Diagram?}
Geller chooses a very solid line.
MCO - possibly for the want of
a better name -
calls this the
"Classical Sicilian."
[ The move of:
5...a6!?, {Diagram?}
brings about the Najdorf
Variation,
one of Fischer's favorite openings. ]
Fischer now uses his favorite ... "anti-Sicilian" weapon ... "The Sozin Sicilian."
6.Bc4!?,
{See the diagram ... just below.}
This is Fischer's favorite weapon
versus the Sicilian.
(Students of
the game should consult opening books here, and also carefully study
the game,
Fischer-Spassky / Game
No. Four, {# 4} / WCS Match /
Reykjavik, Iceland; 1972.)
********************************************
|
|
********************************************
Prior to Fischer's adoption of this
system, most masters regarded this
whole line as somewhat questionable.
Fischer - almost single-handedly - fashioned the Sozin into a
very respectable and feared opening
weapon
for White.
[ Also good is:
6.Bg5, {Diagram?}
which leads to the opening
system known as:
"The Richter-Rauzer
Attack." ]
Both players continue by sensibly
developing their pieces ... they are
also simply following a "book" line.
6...e6;
7.Be3!? Be7!?;
Modern theory says that ...a6;
here is slightly more accurate.
8.Bb3!?,
This is a sort of "safety-first" move,
and can still transpose to all the
main lines from here. However,
GM Mikhail Golubev says that it is
more accurate to play the immediate
Qe2 if one intends to play
the
opening system used in this game.
[ Sharper is: 8.Qe2, "+/=" ]
8...0-0;
9.Qe2!?, {See the diagram - just below.}
This initiates the ultra-sharp system
known as: "The Velimirovic Attack."
********************************************
|
|
********************************************
Basically - in this system - both
players castle on opposite sides of
the board ...
and then try to cut
each other to ribbons!!!
(Attack, attack, attack!)
[ The main line of the Sozin is
reached after the following moves:
9.0-0 a6;
10.f4 Nxd4; 11.Bxd4, "+/=" 11...b5;
("<=>") {Diagram?}
White is probably solidly better,
but Black has good play and his
position
has never been refuted
by opening theory.
See MCO-14 ... (Page # 333.);
or any good book on this particular
opening system. ]
9...Qa5!?;
(hmmm)
{See the diagram ... just below.}
Some annotators and pundits -
Geller included! - greatly criticized
this play ...
but it looks no worse
than many of the main lines that
Black plays today.
{NOTE: Some books call this move
inferior, but I think it is playable.}
********************************************
|
|
********************************************
I think it is also important to try and
remember that these opening lines
and systems were virtually in their
<chessical> infancy
at the time that
this game was played! ('Book'
knowledge did NOT extend much
past move ten!)
[ According to MODERN theory, it
is more accurate for Black to try
and play the following continuation:
(>/=)
9...a6;
10.0-0-0, "+/=" 10...Qc7;
"~" with an elastic defensive position.
{See any good reference book
here.} [ See (also) MCO-14;
beginning on page # 330. ] ]
10.0-0-0 Nxd4;
Black is a little cramped in this
position ... so it makes good
sense to try and swap a few
pieces in this position.
[ Or
10...a6!?; 11.Kb1!,
"+/=" and White is clearly better in this
position.
(Black will eventually have
to trade pieces here, anyway.)
***********************************************************************************************
Bobby Fischer gives a line that
begins with the moves:
(</=) "=" 10...Bd7!?;
('?!') 11.Ndb5!,
"+/=" and White obtains strong pressure.
(hits the d6-square) ]
White now re-captures with the
Bishop ...
but the taking back with
the Rook was probably completely
playable as well.
11.Bxd4 Bd7;
{See the diagram ... just below.}
Black must develop his Q-side
sometime in this game.
********************************************
|
|
********************************************
This was another move that the
"experts" and pundits heaped
criticism on ... and just about all
of them
failed miserably in their
analysis. (Other than the little
line below, I won't go there!)
[ It was too late to try:
</= 11...a6?!; in this position, as after
12.Qe3!,
Black's Queen is embarrassed. (White is solidly better ... "+/=")
]
White's next move is very safe
and solid ... and brings the White
King to a slightly safer square.
(The idea of K/c1-b1 is a very
common one in these lines of the
Sicilian.)
12.Kb1!?,
(Maybe - '!')
One annotator looked very deeply at
f4 for White in this position - and his
line(s) contained at least
FIVE really
bad inaccuracies and mistakes!
[
Interesting was: 12.Rhg1!?, "--->"
(with attack) {Diagram?}
with very good play for White.
See the contest: GM Leonid Yudasin
(2615) -
GM John Fedorowicz (2565);
{men's} (FIDE)
Team Championships / Olympiad /
Novi Sad, Yugoslavia; 1990.
{White won a sharp game.}
]
12...Bc6!?;
(dubious?)
(hmmm)
Black plays a move designed to
bring the piece to a better square,
and also keep most of his options
open here. (Geller gave this move
a whole question mark ... but that
is WAY too harsh!)
[ Taking the file was probably
best for Black here, viz: >/= 12...Rfc8!; {Diagram?}
and although White might still
be a little better, Black's position
is probably solid
enough that
he should survive.
White could now play: 13.f2-f4!, with good play for both sides.
J. Franzen - W. Stern; / 14th Corres. World Champ. / corr.9499, 1994. ]
White's next move is aggressive
and signals his intention to attack.
13.f4 Rad8; (center?)
Black aims for the ...d6-d5;
break in the middle of the board ...
but this does not quite ring true.
[ Maybe 13...Rac8!?; instead? ]
14.Rhf1,
('!?')
Bobby does a lot of useful things
with this move, including activating
(developing) White's last
unmoved
unit. But did Bobby have something
better here?
Several annotators - like Mednis -
give this move an exclam, but the
Yugoslav GM, Petar Trifunovic
analyzed the immediate f4-f5! as
possibly being a fairly substantial
improvement for White.
[ Or 14.Qe1!? a6?; 15.Nd5!, "+/-" ]
Black's next move is best ...
and practically forced.
(If GM
Geller does not get his counter-play rolling soon, he will be
squashed like a bug.)
14...b5!;
15.f5!, (Maybe - '!!') {See
the diagram - - just below here.}
White attempts to get Black to
weaken his Pawn structure by
forcing Black to play ...e6-e5.
{The main strategy here.}
The move is also a prelude to an extremely vicious attack.
********************************************
|
|
********************************************
Some have praised this move.
Others have roundly condemned it.
The only question I have, is ...
WHO THE HECK IS RIGHT???
[ Several annotators have said that that instead White should play the (very strong) thrust e4-e5! here. ]
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
'?' - Llubos Kenosevic.
(An editor for a Yugoslav chess
magazine.)
'?!' - R.G. Wade & K.J. O'Connell.
(In their book of Fischer's games.)
'!?' - {Former}
World Champion GM Tigran Petrosian
(Informant; Issue # 04, Game # 484.)
'!!' - {Former}
World Champion,
GM Robert J. Fischer.
{In the book, "My 60 Memorable
Games."}
'!' - GM Efwim Geller.
(In his book.)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
After giving his move (f5) TWO
exclams, Fischer says:
"The die is cast."
(He goes on to note that he did not
want to waste time with a tempo-loss
like a3 ...
to safeguard his Knight-at-c3.)
[ Several annotators have stated
that the move: 15.e5,
"+/=" ('!') {Diag?}
was vastly better.
'!' - Harding, Botterill, & Kottnauer.
Several theoretical books ... and
dozens of magazines have stated
quite
authoritatively that e4-e5
was much better than f5, but most
of their analysis
just plain stinks!
{In my long version of this game,
I deeply analyze all of the various
alternatives
for White here. But I
will just skip that now!} ]
15...b4!?;
(Probably - '!')
Black expands on the Q-side
and also boots the White Knight.
[ Or </= 15...e5!?; 16.Bf2, "+/=" but White is clearly on top in this particular position. ]
16.fxe6!?,
(Maybe - '?!') {Diagram?}
Bobby Fischer awards this move
an exclam here - as did several
other annotators -
but it seems
they have missed something here.
[ See my letter in GM Larry Evan's
column in the December, 2003
issue of 'Chess Life' ...
{magazine}
(Page # 12?);
for more
details. ]
*********************************************************************
[ Apparently ... both in the game,
and in his later analysis, Fischer ...
{and everyone else!} missed a very clear win for White.
Viz:
>/=
16.Bxf6!! Bxf6[];
This move is practically forced
for Black here ...
certainly taking
with the pawn was VERY ugly.
( </= 16...bxc3??; 17.Bxe7, "+/-" )
17.fxe6!,
(Maybe - '!!')
This move entails a piece
sacrifice by White.
( Less accurate for White
would be:
</= 17.Qc4!? Qc5!; and Black is OK. (Maybe - '=/+') )
17...bxc3;
{Box?} {Diagram?}
Repeated computer analysis
has confirmed that all the various
alternatives here for Black are
definitely much worse.
( Clearly bad for Black is:
</= 17...fxe6?; 18.Bxe6+ Kh8; 19.Rf5!, '±'
{Diag?}
and White is close to winning. )
18.Rxf6!! gxf6[];
This is definitely forced here.
( Worse for Black would be:
</= 18...cxb2?; 19.exf7+! Kh8; 20.Rfxd6, ("+/-")
{D?}
and White is clearly winning. )
The rest of the moves really
need no comment.
19.e7! cxb2!?;
20.exd8Q Rxd8; 21.Qc4! Qc7; 22.Rf1! Qb7!?;
What is better here?
( Not </= 22...Kg7?; 23.Qc3!, & White is winning. ("+/-") )
23.Rxf6 Be8;
24.Qd4 Qc7; 25.Rf3!, '±' (Probably "+/-")
{Diag?}
with a position that is very (very)
much
superior for White. ]
*********************************************************************
16...bxc3;
Black may as well take!
(The alternatives are terrible!)
[ But
definitely NOT: 16...fxe6?;
17.Bxe6+ Kh8; 18.Rf5!, '±' {D?}
and White is close to winning. ]
Now both sides find a very sharp ... and a forcing line.
(Neither party
can deviate from this path without
incurring a serious disadvantage.)
17.exf7+ Kh8;
18.Rf5! Qb4!; (Maybe - '!!')
An extremely fine resource by Geller.
Several sources - most of whom
were present at this tournament
when this game was played -
overheard
Fischer say, (during the
analysis after the game); that he
had underestimated this move as
well!
[ The other main move for Black in
this position was: </= 18...Qc7!?;
"~"
when Black could be just a little
bit better here. ]
19.Qf1!,
{threat?}
Fischer gave this move an exclam,
and noted that White now has the
possibility of RxN/f6.
[ Or 19.Bxc3!? Qb7; "/+" Black is clearly on top. ]
19...Nxe4!; {See
the diagram - just below.}
"A fighting defense," says Bobby
Fischer of this move.
'!' - GM Efwim Geller.
********************************************
|
|
********************************************
This would be a good spot for a diagram. (Who is better? Why?)
[ If now: </= 19...Ng4!?; then the move 20.Bxc3, "~" gives White a ton of play. ]
20.a3?!,
(Maybe - '?')
This looks fairly reasonable, yet it
was condemned (later) as ... "THE LOSING MOVE!!!"
Yet the computers see little or no
difference between this move and
the try of Queen to f4.
(As recommended by Fischer.)
*********************
'?' - Robert G. Wade and Kevin J. O'Connell.
'?' - (Former) World Champion, GM Robert J. Fischer.
'?' - GM Edmar Mednis.
*********************
[ The best try for White was:
>/= 20.Qf4!,
(Maybe - '!!') {Diag?}
according to GM Bobby Fischer.
{But after months of analysis,
I
never found a win for White.} ]
Now Black wraps things up - into one smart package.
20...Qb7!;
21.Qf4!? Ba4!!;
Fischer - later - confessed to
having missed this move.
'!!' - GM Bobby Fischer
"I didn't see it! Moreover, the
strength of this resource didn't
become fully apparent to me ...
for another two moves." - GM Bobby Fischer ("My
60 Memorable Games.")
[ Careless play could still cost
Black the game here. I.e.,
</= 21...Nd2+?;
22.Rxd2! cxd2?!; 23.Bxg7+!! Kxg7; 24.Qg4+! Kh8;
It no longer matters here, (what
move Black plays).
( Or 24...Kh6?!; 25.Rh5#. )
25.Qd4+ Bf6; 26.Qxf6#. ]
22.Qg4 Bf6[];
It should be noted that Fischer
awarded this move an exclam, ('!') ...
---> but it looks (completely)
forced to me!
[ But not:
</=
22...Nf6??; 23.Bxf6! Bxf6; 24.Qxa4,
when White may not be any
worse in this position. ]
23.Rxf6!? Bxb3!;
("-/+")
In this position ... with absolutely
nothing to play for ... Fischer
threw in the towel.
(Fischer said he was thinking
about Rf4, when he saw ...Ba2+.
And on PxB/b3,
then ...NxR/f6;
"is the quietus.")
[ After the following moves ...
which look relatively forced:
23...Bxb3!;
24.cxb3,
There is nothing better.
( Not </= 24.bxc3?? Be6+;
and Black wins the Queen.
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
The main alternative was:
</=
24.Rg6!? Ba2+!!; (Surprise!)
25.Kxa2 Qxb2#. )
24...Nxf6; 25.Bxf6 gxf6; 26.Rd3
Qxb3; 27.Rxc3,
This looks forced.
( Not </= 27.Rg3?? Qxb2#. )
27...Qxf7; ("-/+")
{Diagram?}
Black is a whole Rook up. ]
An amazing game ... and perhaps one of the most complex that I have ever attempted to analyze.
A game that contains mis-plays by
BOTH players ... but is none-the-less unforgettable!!
(One of the great games of the whole
decade of the 1960's.)
This is also a game that has greatly
fascinated chess players for years.
(Dozens of writers have taken a stab
at annotating it.)
***************************************************************************************
{My long version of this game ... complete with an in-depth look at
the opening system ...
runs about seventy-five pages!!! That is why
I did not attempt to reproduce
that here!}
*********************
Copyright © A.J. Goldsby,
1987 - 2003.
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 2004. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************************************************
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
I have seen this game many times in print!! I once saw it in a
magazine ...
that was basically a translation and a reprint of this game when it
was
first printed - in a Yugoslav newspaper shortly after it was played.
I also am pretty sure it was once annotated in the pages of CL&R.
(But I could not find it when I went looking for it.)
First, I annotated this game from memory - pulling just the raw
score from an
on-line database. Then I looked at the following books, given in the
order that
I consulted them. These were the principal sources for my annotation job
here.
# 1.) "The
Games of Robert J. Fischer," by many authors
& annotators.
Edited
by Robert G. Wade and Kevin J. O'Connell.
© 1972,
published by Batsford Books. (London, New York.)
ISBN #
0-7134-2099-5
# 2.) "My
60 Memorable Games," by (GM)
Bobby
Fischer.
© 1969,
published by Simon & Schuster of New York.
[Fischer's analysis is
many times
better than anyone else's, and has to be seen to be believed.
In fact,
I will go so far as to say that the aspiring student will NEVER
truly understand this game ...
until he (or she!) has studied this
titanic struggle with Fischer's own {original} notes!!!!!]
# 3.) "The
Application of Chess Theory," by GM
Yefim Geller.
© 1984,
published by Cadogan Books. (London/New York)
{Translated
by K. Neat.} ISBN # 1-85744-067-6
(Geller's analysis of this game is also superb.)
#
4.) "How To
Beat Bobby Fischer," by (GM) Edmar
Mednis.
©
1974, by Quadrangle Books. (New York City, NY; USA)
#
5.) "The Sicilian Sozin,"
by T.D. Harding, G.S.
Botterill, and
also C.
Kottnauer. (Part of the CCO
series, edited by R.G. Wade.)
© 1974 by
the authors, published by Chess
Digest of Dallas, TX.
# 6.)
"The Sicilian Sozin," by GM
Mikhail Golubev (Copyright 2001.)
Printed
by Gambit Publications.
(UK) ISBN: # 1-901983-38-2
# 7.) I
also consulted literally DOZENS of general opening books. To
name
just a few: NCO,
('Nunn's Chess Opening's)' MCO, ('Modern Chess
Openings,' The Fourteenth
Edition, by Korn and De Firmian.); ECO,
(The Encyclopedia of
Chess Openings, by the same guys who publish
the INFORMANT.
{Yugoslavia}); SCO, BCO, etc. Additionally I must
have hundreds of opening
books, many of these are on various lines
of the Sicilian
Defense.
# 8.) The ChessBase version
of this game that was already in my
files.
(This
analysis was in my reference database.)
# 9.) The
ChessBase CD-ROM on Fischer by GM Robert Hubner.
(Often times
the analysis given in this collection is the very last
word on many
of these games.)
# 10.)
This game is analyzed in the INFORMANT by GM Tigran
Petrosian.
Issue #
04, Game # 484.
***
(Code Initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
Even
though this game was not perfect, it is still one of the great games of
chess literature.
And analysts have argued over what the correct lines
were for ... ... ... DECADES!!!! (Literally!)
My goal here was NOT to overwhelm you with variations ... or provide you with a modern and in-depth opening survey. (I have done that elsewhere. Click here, here, or here to see what I am talking about.) There are parts of the opening phase of the game that I sort of glossed over. No, my goal here was to find the CRITICAL parts of this game ... and correct the errors that were made in the analysis of this exciting and VERY complex struggle. Hopefully I have done that.
June 2003: I am still working on this game. When this note is gone, I will be finished. It may take a few more weeks - or even months - before my work is complete. (I wanted to post this page - it kinda obligates me to finish my work.)
*******
August, 2004: I decided to do a shorter version of this game to post here.
There is no site map, but you
can click here.
(Click here
to return to my Home Page for this site.)
Click here to go to - or return to - my page of: ANNOTATED GAMES, (Angel-Fire 2) Page #3.
Click here
to go to my (main) "Recent GM Games" page.
(LOTS!! ... of great annotated games.)
Click here to go to, (or return to) my "Best Games Page" on my Geo-cities web site.
(Or use the "back" button on your web browser.)
(To contact me concerning this analysis, click here.)
This page was first posted: Sunday; May 25th, 2003. This page was last updated on 05/17/06 .
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1975 - 2005.
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2006. All rights reserved.
|
|
(This page was previewed around 50 times ... initially around 17 times.)
