|
|
Click HERE to see an explanation of some of the more common symbols that I use while annotating a game. Click here to replay this game ... on the popular "Chess Games" server.
**************************
This is mostly a text-based page, with only one or two diagrams. Therefore, you will probably need, (or most likely, want); a chess board.
This is a game I have studied since before I was a teen-ager. (Somebody at chess club probably got a copy of Fischer's book - which was new at the time.) I always thought this was a great game. A GM at a U.S. Open I attended (in the mid-1970's) named this game when I asked him to give me a list of the 10 best draws. Several other players also told me this was a pretty exceptional draw.
I personally thought this was a great game of chess, but I a little disappointed when Soltis named this as one of the most over-rated games of all time. I have gotten dozens of e-mails from people asking me what I thought of this game. I was going to annotate this game right away, when I first started my Geo-Cities web site. But I got caught up in many other projects first. (My "Short Games" page. My Page on the "Best Moves." Etc. I felt those projects logically should be completed first.) But since many of those other projects are finally finished, I can - at last! - get around to annotating a few of those other games.
I was told by one person who was there - that this game was carefully covered by the news media. The USSR vs. America clash was one aspect. A still fairly young Tal ... was the favorite of the Russian press. And Fischer - born in 1943 - was 16 or 17 at the time ... and very much the darling of photographers and news-people everywhere. This match - and the game - was front page news for many newspapers. There were also articles on this in many magazines of the era.
***************************************************************************************************************
A very famous game, perhaps one of the most well-known draws ever played. It has been reprinted an almost countless number of times. (Newspapers, books, and magazines.)
[In the old days, every book on the French Defense quoted this game.]
Several GM's have named this game when I asked them to list some of the best draws ever played.
Dozens of annotators have taken a whack at this game. The list is very long, but a few of the better known names are: Fischer, Tal, Botvinnik, Khalifman, Gligoric, Huebner, Nunn, Uhlmann, Chernev, Barden, and of course, ... GM Andy Soltis.
This contest gained added stature when Fischer chose to include it in his excellent book, "My Sixty (60) Memorable Games."
Surprisingly, GM Andy Soltis trashes this game. He even calls it: "The MOST over-rated game ever played!!"
**************
The ratings are only estimates ... the ELO system had not been invented yet in 1960.
***************************************************************************************************************
1.e4 e6!?;
A surprising decision, as Tal had
usually played VERY poorly with
the French Defense. But Tal -
and his trainer, Koblentz -
decided Fischer was not 'at ease' playing the White side of these lines.
Therefore they decided it would be
a reasonable try against Bobby.
'!' - M. Tal.
[ Tal could play:
1...c5; {Diagram?}
---> The Sicilian Defense.
Or 1...e5; {Diagram?} with equal skill. ]
2.d4 d5; 3.Nc3,
Fischer almost always played
this move ... especially in his
younger days.
[ Karpov - much later - was to play
the Tarrasch System with the move:
3.Nd2, ('!')
{Diagram?} and revived an entire branch of
the openings
that was virtually
dormant for close to 75 years. ]
3...Bb4;
The Winawer System.
(Invented by one of the better
masters who ever lived. Most young
players today cannot even tell you
who Winawer was or when he lived.)
The Winawer is both the main line, and probably the best and most solid choice for Black at this point.
[ Black could also try:
3...Nf6!?; 4.e5 Nfd7; 5.f4,
"+/="
with maybe a slight advantage
to White in this position. ]
4.e5 c5; 5.a3 Ba5!?; {See the diagram given below.}
This line was considered very, very, VERY risky ... at the time this game was actually played.
*************************
|
|
*************************
You see, 5...Ba5 was actually one of the original ideas of Winawer, but he later stopped playing it entirely. (After a few reversals.)
The move 5...Ba5 was later picked up and revived by a whole generation of young Soviet players in the 1930's and the 1940's. But it was Botvinnik who really forged this line into a coherent and viable system. He used it in Soviet Championship tournaments, and even at the World Championship level. (This line did not do very well against Smyslov, who began to show its seamier side.) But after several losses, especially a noteworthy loss to Unzicker at an earlier Olympiad, opening theory had branded this whole line as being completely unsound.
Tal had done much work with these lines in preparation for his matches with Botvinnik. I guess he decided that he did not want all that material to go forever unused!
[ The main line today is:
5...Bxc3+; 6.bxc3,
"+/=" when White has a very solid
advantage.
(White can play Qg4!?
- which is highly tactical,
and many books consider to be
the best.
Or White can try the
positional approach with Nf3
or
even a4!? All of these methods
probably yield White a slight edge.) ]
6.b4!,
A very good move ... and basically
a gambit for White. This is a sharp
idea originally of Rubinstein's that
was later deeply analyzed and
nearly perfected by Alekhine.
(See another
game in the French.)
[ Interesting is: 6.Qg4!? ]
6...cxd4;
The book line, and probably the
best move.
It is far too dangerous for Black to grab one ... or even two pawns in this position - as Alekhine was the first to clearly demonstrate.
[ After the moves:
6...cxb4!?; 7.Nb5! bxa3+!?;
This is much too risky for Black.
( Maybe better is: 7...Nc6!?; {Diagram?}
Maybe Black should also
consider: 7...Bc7;
to protect the vital d6-square. )
8.c3! a6?!;
(Maybe - '?')
If Black does not want to lose,
he might have to guard d6 here.
( >/= 8...Bc7[]; 9.Qg4!, "+/=" )
9.Nd6+ Kf8[];
10.Qf3!, '±'
... and White has a very
dangerous,
(if not winning); attack. ]
7.Qg4!?, (Maybe - '!')
A very sharp move ... and a very
interesting one. (White hits the
obviously undefended g7-square.)
[ Today theory recommends that
White play: >/= 7.Nb5!,
(!!)
7...Bc7;
8.f4, "+/=" {Diagram?}
with a solid advantage to White.
One of the more recent examples
I could find in the database was
the following encounter:
P. Smirnov (2535) -
V. Popov (2580)
The Premier Russian Cup,
(Stage IV); 2002. [replay]
{White won a long and difficult game
in 80 moves - one that featured
TWO Q+P endings, after promotions! But White seemed to be
...
always - at
least - a little better.}
***
This was also played in the game:
M. Tal - Koblentz;
Riga Championship, 1954. (See the book: "The French
Defense."
By GM's S. Gligoric & W. Uhlmann.
Copyright (c) 1975, RHM Press.) ]
7...Ne7; 8.bxa5!? dxc3; 9.Qxg7 Rg8; 10.Qxh7 Nbc6!;
This is a big improvement ... a TN,
actually ... over how this line had
been previously played.
[ 10...Bd7!?; or 10...Qxa5!? ]
11.Nf3 Qc7; 12.Bb5!?, (Maybe - !')
A very sharp and interesting move
that was praised by some ... and
condemned by others.
I think the move is both viable and playable, but current theory seems to prefer >/= Bf4!
'!' - GM R.J. ('Bobby') Fischer.
[ Better is: >/= 12.Bf4!, "+/=" and White holds a small edge.
(I have 2 new French books and
MCO-14. They all recommend
that White play Bf4 on move 12.)
]
12...Bd7!;
Tal fully deserves an exclam for
passing up Bobby's (prepared)
trap - nasty things happen to
the second player if he grabs the
g2-Pawn.
[ </= 12...Rxg2!?, (Probably '?!') 13.Kf1!, "+/=" ]
13.0-0 0-0-0!?; (Maybe - '!') {Diagram?}
This is an obvious and also a
very logical move.
(Black is
understandably nervous about
his King being in the center.)
This line is not without risk for Tal, he must be prepared to gambit one (f7) or even two pawns in this line.
Thus far Soltis covers this game with no comments. Only now he speaks out and awards Black a full question mark. (He says that LATER analysis showed that the move ...Nxe5; was much better.)
'?' - GM Andy Soltis.
[ Possibly better is:
>/= 13...Nxe5!;
Tal saw this - and spent many
minutes analyzing this move.
But then he decided that it did
not appeal to him.
(Petrosian first recognized the value
of this move, and published his
analysis in a Soviet magazine
shortly after this game was played.)
14.Nxe5 Qxe5;
15.Bxd7+ Kxd7; 16.Qd3!, "~"
Tal AND Fischer looked at this
position in the post-mortem
analysis.
(After the game.)
They BOTH came to the
conclusion that White was
better
in this position!!
Soltis
says Black should play the
move ...d4!; "=/+" here, and he
may be
correct. But it is still not really
one-hundred percent clear.
( 16.Qxf7? Raf8; "-/+" ) ]
14.Bg5!?, (Probably - '?!') {See
the diagram given - just below.}
Bobby played this, believing it
gave him an advantage. And he
said he had 'under-estimated' the
strength of Tal's reply.
*************************
|
|
*************************
To be honest the move is no good and has been universally condemned by all the annotators - most gave it a full question mark. ('?')
ALSO ... Fischer himself (later) came up with a significant improvement to this move. (In this position.)
[ Bobby Fischer analyzes:
>/= 14.Bxc6! Bxc6!?;
{Diagram?}
This could be Black's best bet.
( Probably worse was: </= 14...Qxc6?!; ('?') 15.Bg5 d4;
16.h4!, '±' (Maybe "+/-") {Diag?} and White is hugely better.
Or Black could try: </= 14...Nxc6!?; ('?!') 15.Re1!?,
"+/=" {Diag?}
followed by Bg5! and h4,
"with a winning bind," according
to
GM Robert J. Fischer. )
15.Qxf7! d4!;
16.Qxe6+ Bd7; 17.Qxe7!! Rxg2+!?; 18.Kxg2 Bh3+;
19.Kxh3 Qxe7;
20.Bg5, "+/-" {Diagram?}
and White consolidates, and
wins easily. - GM R. Fischer.
]
14...Nxe5!; (Maybe - '!!') {Diagram?}
"Setting off a dazzling array of
fireworks! I thought Tal was simply trying to confuse the issue."
- GM R.J. Fischer.
[ 14...Rh8!?; "~" ]
15.Nxe5,
This is virtually forced.
[ 15.Bxe7? Nxf3+; 16.Kh1 Rh8; "-/+" ]
15...Bxb5!; (Maybe - '!!')
I personally think this is the best
move here. Literally over a DOZEN
GM's have given this move an
exclamation mark. (Many strong
programs also choose this move.)
Soltis - however - gives it ... A FULL QUESTION MARK!!! ('?') (And he is completely alone in this opinion, as far as I can determine.)
Several annotators have all looked at this position. Many have said Black should play ...Qxe5!! here. BUT! ... the experts are FAR from being unified as to the results of this move.
Tal did a very deep analysis of this
idea and it was published in several
different (Soviet) magazines.[It was later incorporated into his
book of his life and games that was
first published
by RHM Press in
1976.] Tal's conclusion was that
...Qxe5 eventually led to a position that ... WAS MUCH BETTER FOR
WHITE!!! Many years later, GM
Robert Huebner did an extremely
deep analysis, and came to the
conclusion that --->
... BLACK WAS WINNING!!!!!!!!
(Much of Huebner's analysis can
be found in ChessBase's annotations
of this game, and also in the
excellent books of Tal's games by
GM Alexander Khalifman.)
My analysis of Tal's and Huebner's work (as just concerns ...Qxe5); has taken YEARS and is not even finished yet. It would also probably fill a small book. And at this point, I am not even willing to say who is right.
[ Many of the experts feel that:
>/= 15...Qxe5!?; ('!!') {Diagram?}
would be better than the game.
But I don't think that it is really
all that clear-cut.
The best line may still be: 16.Bxe7 Rh8;
17.Rfe1! Qxe1+; 18.Rxe1 Rxh7;
19.Bxd8 Kxd8;
20.Bxd7 Kxd7; "~" {Diagram?}
with a position I evaluate as
being totally unbalanced and
unclear. ("~")
Fischer
says now the
move R-K3! (Re3)
"bails White
out," ...
and he may be correct.
{This is the position that many
analysts have looked at deeply,
and even
come to OPPOSING
conclusions about!} ]
16.Nxf7 Bxf1!; (Maybe - '!!') {Diagram?}
"This move is the sole bright
note of the whole game," says
Soltis. He notes that the game now
winds up with a few tactical
flourishes.
[ 16...Rdf8!? ]
17.Nxd8,
Some annotators have given this
move an exclam, - - - to me this
move is nearly forced.
[ 17.Rxf1? Rdf8; "/+" ]
Both players now find a series of
fine moves in an extremely complex position ... that eventually leads to
the correct result. (A draw.)
17...Rxg5!; 18.Nxe6! Rxg2+!; 19.Kh1, {See the diagram
given - just below.}
Fischer and Tal BOTH give this
move an exclam ... but in my
opinion it is completely forced.
{And totally undeserving of any
praise.} (Kf1 looks to be losing.)
*************************
|
|
*************************
Certainly Kh1 makes more sense here than anything else.
[ After the moves:
19.Kxf1?!, ('?') 19...Rxh2!;
"/+"
and now 20.Nxc7!?, ('?')
20...Rxh7; "-/+" {Diagram?}
White is losing. (If the first player saves his N,
then ...Rh1+; picks off a Rook.) ]
The last few moves are all best
and/or forced.
19...Qe5!; 20.Rxf1 Qxe6;
21.Kxg2 Qg4+; Draw Agreed.
Black can check on g4 and f3 for as long as he likes ... at least until White tires of the sport and agrees to split the point!
This is certainly one of the better
and more interesting draws I have
ever studied. And while it is short
and far from being perfect,
its
content and entertainment value more than makes up for it.
I certainly do not think it deserves the treatment it has gotten from critics, most notably Huebner and also GM Andrew Soltis.
<< Tal wrote of Fischer, "I gained the
impression that it was only after this
encounter that he began to 'respect'
me." That's a remarkable comment -
considering that Tal had beaten
Fischer 4-0 in the previous year's
Candidates Tournament, and [also] considering what a {worthless}
trifle this
game really is. >> -
GM Andrew Soltis.
(His book, "The 100 Best," page # 16.)
***************************************************************************************************************
Bibliography:
I have seen this game in print many
times over the years. It would be
impossible to say how many times.
But the following were my chief
sources of material that I consulted while annotating this game ... given in the order that I used them:
*******
# 1.) "The 100 Best."
('The 100 Best Chess Games of
The 20th Century, Ranked.')
By GM Andrew
Soltis. Copyright (c) 2000.
Published by: McFarland Books, Inc.
(GM A. Soltis considers this to be
a very OVER-RATED game ... his
analysis
begins on page # 15.)
# 2.) ['The Mammoth Book' Of]
"The World's Greatest Chess Games,"
(100 of the best games
ever played, deeply annotated.)
By GM John
Nunn, GM John Emms, and FM Graham Burgess.
Copyright (c) by the authors, 1998.
Published by Carroll & Graf Books.
# 3.) "My
Sixty Memorable Games," by
GM R.J. ("Bobby") Fischer.
(With an introduction to all the
games by IGM Larry Evans.)
Copyright (c) 1969 by the author.
Published by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
(New York City, NY; U.S.A.)
# 4.) "The Life and
Games of
MIKHAIL TAL." (By M. Tal.)
{Edited by IM D.N.L. Levy.}
Copyright (c) 1976 by the author.
Published by R.H.M. Press.
ISBN: # 0-89058-223-8
# 5.) "The (complete, collected)
Games of Robert J. Fischer,"
by Robert
G. Wade & Kevin J. O'Connell.
Copyright (c) 1972. (reprinted 1981, '85, '87)
Published by B.T. Batsford, Ltd.
ISBN: # 0-7134-2099-5
# 6.) A notebook of analysis.
(This is a very large nb of stuff
I have collected over the years.
This one is dedicated to some
of the greatest draws of all time.
Unfortunately, I have not always
recorded my sources.)
# 7.) My CB (CB = ChessBase) analysis of this game.
(I have merged this database
many times, so contributions by
different
authors are all together.)
# 8.) A photo-copy of the complete
magazine article that Huebner did
on this
game in 1991.
# 9.) I recently purchased the
'ChessBase' CD-ROM by GM R. Huebner
on Fischer's games. VERY detailed
analysis of all of Fischer's games,
some of these are to a depth and
a level I had not seen before.
***
(I have a book in Yugoslav by
GM Svetozar Gligorich. But I am
not good at translating;
although I can follow the game notation.
I also have a pamphlet on the
French by
GM M. Matulovich.
{It's pretty old.} This game is in
there as well. A friend and {former}
Internet student also scanned a
copy of an article - which was also
translated into
English - that Tal
did on this game in 1976. In
addition to all of the above, I
referenced
MCO-14 many times ...
and literally dozens of other
opening books - mainly on the
French Defence.)
*******
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby I
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1978 - 2002.
Copyright (c) A.J.G; 2003.
*******
(All games, HTML code initially) Generated with ChessBase 8.0
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, {ANY version of this game.}; click here.)
I actually have annotated this game quite a few times. I annotated it first in the mid-to-late 1970's, for a scholastic chess magazine in another state. (GA, I think.) I thought I still had a copy of that game, but I could not find it when I went looking for it. I annotated this game in GREAT depth, but this game/file is a complete mess. (I imported a lot of chess games, and other stuff. It would NOT make a good looking web page ... it would take centuries to format!!) I annotated this game again ... starting about two years ago. That version is still not really finished yet. It also would NOT make a good web page, it runs close to fifty pages. (There is an opening repertoire/survey, about 30-50 games in the ...Ba5; variation. There are diagrams after every move and many analysis diagrams as well. I might even finish it ... one day.)
This is a version of this game that took almost a week to do. (My goal was 5
pages or less.) While I did not really meet that goal, I am quite happy with the job I did here.
It is reasonably short, it has some good analysis, and the verbiage is excellent. (I basically tried to
summarize what I had done earlier.)
This is NOT the most in-depth version you are likely to see. If you would like a very deep analysis, I highly recommend you get a copy of one of the books I quote in the bibliography.
This page was first posted: Wednesday; April 16th, 2003. This page was last updated on 04/10/11 .
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 1975 - 2010.
Copyright (©) A.J. Goldsby, 2011. All rights reserved.
