Hi folks,
The "I have tactics but no plan" thread started by grit had some responses that made me think. I started this because I did not want to hijack the other thread.
I think this game may go a long way towards illustrating some of the concepts presented in the other thread.
I wonder, by seeing the first 21 moves, can anyone tell from the play which player was higher rated or at least stronger? I'll post the complete game later.
White was stronger in that game, no matter what rating they had.
white is playing with black. Black's bishop is blocked by his own pawn, the squares for his knight is blocked too. White controls the open a-file that white opened themselves. The bishops are fine in the semi-open structure.
I wouldn't mind knights either but if he can rip it up bishops are fine
the reason why I would prefer knights is because of the open a-file
white can choose to just capitalize on the a-file and it's easier done with the support of knights, while the a-file is open right here right now Nc4 and Nd5 are cool, Nb5 would be cool so white can play Ra7 easy but the d-file is cool too, the knight is there, if the knight moves away the a-file is getting better for white, if it doesn't white can try gettin a presence on the d-file too. I think if the d-file would be blocked it would be almost straight out winning for white. 🙂
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI might have been inclined to look at the game, although I wouldn't have been qualified to make any deep comments.
I thought I would get some comments about how many times white moves his queen's knight, only to trade it off, but I suspect that no one is bothering to look at it. 😞
But this was clearly one of those "mystery" threads. I got the impression you were hoping that someone would make a stupid comment, then you'd jump all over it. I don't like playing those games. If you have something to say, just come right out and say it. Don't keep us in suspense, hoping to trip us up.
Originally posted by Mad RookSince you are inclined to assume speculatively (but not particularly accurately), I'll just give you the game (Fischer-Ibrahimoglu, Siegen 1970) and let you draw your own conclusions. The moves speak for themselves!
I might have been inclined to look at the game, although I wouldn't have been qualified to make any deep comments.
But this was clearly one of those "mystery" threads. I got the impression you were hoping that someone would make a stupid comment, then you'd jump all over it. I don't like playing those games. If you have something to say, just come right out and say it. Don't keep us in suspense, hoping to trip us up.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettThanks for that very useful information.
Since you are inclined to assume speculatively (but not particularly accurately), I'll just give you the game (Fischer-Ibrahimoglu, Siegen 1970) and let you draw your own conclusions. The moves speak for themselves!
Paul, if you're expecting me to save this thread, you might want to reassess your expectations. It's your choice, though.
I thought Black was stronger, simply because of the d3 move in the beginning! Also, Mariska mentioned blacks bishops, but white's bishops are both bad, and the knight in the situation may be pretty good. Did Fischer win this game? It seems like black is solid!
Originally posted by Maxacre42Sorry about that- I should have shown the whole game.
I thought Black was stronger, simply because of the d3 move in the beginning! Also, Mariska mentioned blacks bishops, but white's bishops are both bad, and the knight in the situation may be pretty good. Did Fischer win this game? It seems like black is solid!
I play the KIA, so I am used to 2. d3!
What I love about the game is that Fischer moves his knight 7 times in the first 21 moves, then exchanges it for a relatively poorly-developed black knight, simply to capitalize on the light squares. It's a perfect example of the statement about Fischer never having bad pieces but exchanges them and leaves his opponent with the bad ones.
I too thought black must be better the first time I played it, just because of those "wasted" moves, not appreciating that there was an idea behind each one of it's moves, and that it is the positional aspects of the game that have the greatest influence on the relative value of the pieces remaining on the board.
It was the fact that the game had such a profound impact on my thinking, and made me re-evaluate how I looked at things, that made wonder what others would think after seeing it.
Here it is! It's worth playing through twice, to appreciate the positional aspects the second time around.
Originally posted by Mad RookI don't have any particular attachment to the thread, other than the hope that others will find it of interest. I think you have this all wrong, but it's sort of the nature of the anonymous internet for people to be suspicious and look for malicious intent. Enjoy or disregard at your discretion!
Thanks for that very useful information.
Paul, if you're expecting me to save this thread, you might want to reassess your expectations. It's your choice, though.
I thought white looked much stronger, and was possibly a master. black I thought was maybe a 1800-player or thereabouts. funnily enough I tought about fischer because of the white opening, but would've never guessed it actually was him. nor any other top level master. I thought maybe an FM, IM or a weak GM.
that said, I don't think there's much to separate different kinds of strong players so early in the game. in fact white could've easily been a low rated rhp database user just as well.
Originally posted by wormwoodYou brought up an interesting aspect of the game that I will pass along, as the guys at my chess club thought it was interesting (we do this stuff at my club every week- either a puzzle to solve or a game to guess).
I thought white looked much stronger, and was possibly a master. black I thought was maybe a 1800-player or thereabouts. funnily enough I tought about fischer because of the white opening, but would've never guessed it actually was him. nor any other top level master. I thought maybe an FM, IM or a weak GM.
that said, I don't think there's much to separa ...[text shortened]... in the game. in fact white could've easily been a low rated rhp database user just as well.
It was played in the Siegen Olympiad in 1970. Fischer was in the process of gearing up for his World Championship run, and he wanted to play, but he did not want to give away any of his opening repertoire, nor give the Soviets anything to study and crunch.
As a result, he played the King's Indian Attack (from the 1. e4 move order) several times. It was a part of his repertoire all the way back to 1956- he played 1. Nf3 until 1962, then transitioned to 1. e4 after that.
From the 1. e4 move order, he played it against the French and the Caro Kann, and sometimes against the Sicilian if black played 2. ... e6.
This is only tangentially related to this thread, but I'm a big Fischer fan so... Below is my favorite game from Fischer's "preparation period" leading up to the WC: Fischer vs. Andersson, 1970. Fischer plays a very odd hedgehog system which impressed Andersson so much, he went on to become a specialist in this style of play. Devotees of Mihail Suba will especially enjoy it, it may even be in one of his books, I've never actually gotten my hands on one! Anyways, Fischer clearly gives away nothing to the Soviets...
Originally posted by DivGradCurlI consider this a perfect extension of the idea of the thread- Fischer challenged conventions and displayed an open-minded approach in his play.
This is only tangentially related to this thread, but I'm a big Fischer fan so... Below is my favorite game from Fischer's "preparation period" leading up to the WC: Fischer vs. Andersson, 1970. Fischer plays a very odd hedgehog system which impressed Andersson so much, he went on to become a specialist in this style of play. Devotees of Mihail Suba will ...[text shortened]... 39.Rh3 Kg8
40.hxg6 Nxg6 41.f4 Kf8 42.Qg5 Nd6 43.Bxd6+ 1-0
[/pgn]