Chessville
...by Chessplayers, for Chessplayers!
Today is


Site Map

Chessville
logo by
ChessPrints

 

Already
Play the
Colle System?

Learn to Play it Better!

The Moment of Zuke:
Critical Positions and
Pivotal Decisions for
Colle System Players

by David Rudel
author of Zuke 'Em

7 modules written just for Colle System Players.  Over 150 practice problems accompany lessons written in Rudel's crystal-clear, inimitable style

Thematic Lessons
on game-changing
decisions Colle Players
frequently face

Two Free
Excerpts
Available


Advertise
with
Chessville!!

Advertise to
thousands
of chess
fans for
as little
as
$25.

Single insert:
$35
x4 insert:
@ $25 each.



From the
Chessville
Chess Store



 


 


From the
Chessville
Chess Store

 

 

 

 

 

World Champion Fischer
by GM Robert Huebner

Reviewed by Prof. Nagesh Havanur


ChessBase Monograph on CD, 2003

November 9, 1970. Play at the Interzonal, Palma de Mallorca  has just begun.  The tournament hall is abuzz with excitement.  Robert James Fischer, the American champion, has once again staked his claim at the World Championship cycle.  After his resounding defeat of Petrosian in the Match of the Century (3:1) and victories at the Rovinj –Zagreb and Buenos Aires events ahead of the Soviet GMs, there has been no looking back for Fischer.

His first round opponent is a slim bespectacled player, Robert Huebner from Cologne, West Germany.  His shy and serious demeanor betrays no sign of being intimidated by his formidable rival.  The game  takes a dramatic course, with Fischer blundering away a piece in the later middle game.  It is drawn only after a dynamically balanced position is reached.

The rest is history.

Fischer won the First Prize at the Interzonal  and beat Taimanov (6-0!), Larsen (6-0 again!) and Petrosian (6.5-3.5) in the Candidates’ Matches.  Soon after he won the World Championship after beating Spassky in what was billed as The Match of The Century.

The rise of his young opponent Huebner was less spectacular.  He won the Second Prize at the same Interzonal and became a World Championship candidate.  He lost a narrow match to the vastly more experienced Petrosian and bowed out of the cycle.  In  the subsequent decade he became a renowned tournament and match player crossing swords with the likes of such players as Smyslov, Korchnoi, Portisch and Timman.

But in the end Huebner, with his scholarly bent of mind and philosophical outlook, chose not to be a chess professional.  He became a papyrologist and  followed a distinguished academic career.

As for Fischer, life became a steady descent into hell....from the involuntary loss of title to Karpov in 1975 to the incarceration in a Tokyo prison cell.

The tormented mind of the champion found solace and comfort only when the Icelandic community came to his rescue and provided a safe haven for him.

Two brilliant minds, and two different destinies.

Although Huebner is prominently mentioned  as the author of  this CD, his role here is limited to writing a summary of Fischer's style and and work on various positions from My 60 Memorable Games.  It is noteworthy that Kasparov has also made use of Huebner's  path-breaking analysis in this CD for his authoritative work on Fischer, My Great Predecessors Part IV.  However, Huebner's general conclusions on Fischer's play tend to be philosophical abstractions and do not have intrinsic merit.

The main part of the CD is a database  containing 956 games and  44 texts.  The  latter carry  brief tournament and match reports.

Ideally speaking, every game in this CD should have detailed annotations.  Here, however, only 462 out of  956 games carry annotations of any length.  Some of the games contain only wordless notes and a few  carry very brief comment with just one or two short variations.  In all fairness it should be stated that most World Championship and Candidates' Matches are annotated at great length citing several sources.  Here the mass of comment from various authorities can be quite confusing and contradictory.  (See the game Fischer-Larsen, 1971 below.)

Then there are both well-known and unknown games without any annotations.  They deserve to be seen, studied and appreciated.  (See the game Tringov-Fischer, 1965 below.)

Last but not the least, there has been a revival of interest in Fischer in recent years on account of Andrew  Soltis' work Bobby Fischer Rediscovered and Garry Kasparov's work, Fischer, My Great Predecessors Part IV.  Both books abound in analytical discoveries and they tend to reverse a number of time-honoured conclusions reached on Fischer's games.  As these books were published only after the release of the ChessBase CD, it is necessary for the discerning player to take note of their findings as well.

The multimedia section contains seven short video clips with footage of Fischer's appearance in the following events:

1) Yugoslavia 1958                            (0:38min)
2) Leipzig 1960                                  (3:59 min)
3) Yugoslavia 1970                            (4:35 min)
4) Siegen 1970                                   (0:27 min)
5) Fischer Interview USA 1972          (1:42 min)
6) Fischer Interview on psychology     (0:05 min)
7) Reykjavik 1972                              (4:01 min)

The videos may be old, with many images faded and blurred.  But some of the footage is memorable stuff.  The clip on psychology is less than a minute, with a famous one-liner:

''No.  I don't believe in psychology.  I believe in good moves.''

The image of 16-year-old Fischer playing against Tal is a study in contrast.  Bobby's innocence and total absorption in the game are endearing.  The opposite is the supremely confident Tal, darting a good-humored glance at his opponent and making a move with a wonderful smile lighting up his face.

Incidentally, this game, which was played in the Interzonal, ended in a draw.

The footage from the World Championship Match has Fischer blundering away his bishop in the first game.  It also shows a tense and grim Boris Spassky.  The World Champion appears to be the underdog, and the irony of the situation is not missed on the viewer.

Now for the games:

Georgi  Tringov - Robert James Fischer
Havana 1965

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6








 Fischer's favorite  Najdorf Variation.

6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6

The Poisoned Pawn Variation.

8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5!?








This line was introduced by Paul Keres way back in 1955. Kasparov analyzed it twice in his My Great Predecessors series.  There are two annotated games, Tal-Tolush 1956(MGP II) and Bilek-Tal 1962(MGP IV).  He opined that the text was a dubious move.  However, in an article in the New in Chess Magazine 8/2006 he analyzed the variation again and held that it was viable.  In the recent Corus 2007 Tournament Anand faced it as Black against Motylev and won.  Then he played it as White against Van Wely and won again!  The other major lines are 10.Bxf6, 10.Be2 and the sharp 10.f5.

10...dxe5

10...h6 was played in the games Motylev-Anand and Anand-Van Wely, Corus 2007.

11.fxe5 Nfd7 12.Bc4

A major alternative is Tal's move 12.Ne4.  It has been recently revived, thanks to the efforts of players like Radjabov and Anand.  12...h6 13.Bh4 (13.Bb5!?









Analysis Diagram: after 13.Bb5!?

...is the new miracle move being debated on the pages of NIC Yearbook 82.  See the forthcoming Chessville Review for a discussion of the same.)  13...Qxa2 14.Rd1  (An improvement on 14.Rb3?! 14...Qa1+ 15.Kf2 Qa4 Korchnoi-Tolush 1958) 14...Qd5! (Kasparov's recommendation) 15.Qe3 Qxe5 leads by transposition to Motylev-Anand and Anand-Van Wely, Corus 2007 games.

12...Bb4

12...Qa5 is a powerful alternative tried by Fischer in other games.








13.Rb3

13.Nxe6?!  It took years to prove that this move is unsound.  But not 13...fxe6 14.Rxb4 ! 14...Qxb4

A) 15.0–0 Qc5+ ! (15...Qxc4 ? 16.Ne4 Qxe4 17.Qd6+-) 16.Rf2 Qxc4 17.Ne4 Qxe4 18.Qd6 Qe1+ 19.Rf1 Qxf1+ ! 20.Kxf1 Rf8+ 21.Kg1 Kf7–+ -Soltis

B) 15.Bxe6 15...h6 !  16.0–0 ? 16...Qb6+–+ -Nunn.  But after 17.Be3 Qxe6 18.Nd5 Qc6 White still has some threats with 19.Qa5 (or 19.Qd4 - NSH)

16.Bf7+ 16...Kxf7 17.Qd5+ Kg6 18.Qd3+ Kh5! (Not 18...Kxg5?? 19.h4+ Kh5 20.Qf5++-) - Nunn.  Now it is impossible to see how White can justify his sacrifices.  For example, 19.Be7!? 19...Nxe5 (19...Qxe7? 20.Qf5++-) 20.Qe2+ Qg4 21.Qxe5+ Kg6 –+

13...Qa5 14.0–0 0–0

14...Nxe5!? deserves attention. - Kasparov

15.Nxe6?








15.Bf6! 15...Nxf6 ! 16.exf6 Rd8 17.Rxb4 ! 17...Qxb4 18.Qg5 g6 is correct with an unclear game. - Kasparov

15...fxe6 16.Bxe6+ Kh8 17.Rxf8+ Bxf8 18.Qf4 Nc6!

18...Qxe5 19.Qxe5 (19.Qf7 ?? 19...Qe1+ 20.Qf1 Qxe6–+) 19...Nxe5 20.Bxc8 is at least equal according to Soltis.  But White may have the edge on account of his active pieces. - NSH

19.Qf7 Qc5+ 20.Kh1

If 20.Be3 Qxe3+ 21.Kf1 Qc1+ 22.Kf2 (22.Ke2 Nd4+ 23.Kf2 Nxe6–+) 22...Bc5+

20...Nf6!








21.Bxc8

The knight cannot be captured:

21.exf6 Bxe6 22.fxg7+ Bxg7 23.Qxe6 Qxg5 –+; or

21.Bxf6 Bxe6 22.Qxe6 gxf6 23.Qxf6+ Bg7 –+

21...Nxe5 ! 22.Qe6 Neg4








Now White has no answer to the threats of ...Nf2+ and ...Rxc8.

0–1

A superb example of defence and counterattack. Unfortunately, this game appears without notes in the CD.

The following encounter took place in dramatic circumstances.  Larsen had won a string of international tournaments before Fischer returned to the arena.  Although he was placed second in the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal, he had the satisfaction of beating Fischer (his only loss) in their individual encounter.  A year before the Candidates' Match Larsen had proudly declared,

"I believe in myself. I am sure that I will win the Candidates' event and in 1972 I will win the title of world champion.  I heard about Fischer's statement that in the American press that he is the strongest player in the world.  I do not agree.  The best player in the world now is Larsen.  I do not say this out of self-praise, not to cause a sensation, but because I firmly believe it.''

Here is what happened:

Robert James Ficher-Bent Larsen
Candidates'  Match Semifinal ( 1) 10.6.07.1971

1.e4 e6

Larsen rarely played the French Defence, so the opening was a surprise to Fischer.  In the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970 he had beaten Bobby with his favourite Sicilian Defence. 1...c5.

2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4








''The Winawer Variation has given Fischer consistent trouble.  He has had the utmost difficulty cracking Black's tortoise-like shell; even his successes are unconvincing.'' - Larry Evans

In his book My 60 Memorable Games Fischer states, ''I may yet be forced to admit that the Winawer is sound.  But I doubt it!  The defense is unsound and it weakens the kingside.''  It was the right choice against Fischer as he had lost a couple of games with White, succumbing to the same.

4.e5

The game Fischer-Kovacevic 1970 went 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 Nf6 7.Qxg7 Rg8 8.Qh6 Nbd7 .....0–1 (30 moves).

4...Ne7 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.a4








''Smyslov's favourite, largely responsible for Botvinnk's giving up the Winawer Variation.  Sharper is 7.Qg4. I felt that Black's carapace could be cracked by only positional means, but my results have been disheartening.'' Fischer in My 60 Memorable Games.  Since then theory has come full circle.  7.a4 loses a valuable tempo according to Kasparov.  He prefers 7.Nf3 or the shaper 7.Qg4.

7...Nbc6 8.Nf3 Bd7

Korchnoi played the aggressive 8...Qa5 against Spassky in The Candidates Match Final, 1977 with success.  It is this move that has discouraged White players from playing 7.a4.-Kasparov

9.Bd3 Qc7








''Larsen employs a system, aiming to liquidate e5 with ...f6, that Mednis used to upset Fischer in the first round of the 1962-63 U.S. Championship.'' - Soltis

Not 9...0–0? 10.Bxh7+ Kxh7 11.Ng5+ Kg6 12.h4!+-

If 9...Qa5 10.0–0 c4 11.Be2 Qxc3? (Instead 11...0–0–0 , retaining the threat of...Qxc3 may be considered.-NSH) 12.Bd2 Qb2 13.Rb1 Qa3 14.Rxb7 with initiative. - Timman

10.0–0 c4

10...f6 deserves attention according to the annotators in the CD.  But it is is risky according to Kasparov, after 11.exf6 gxf6 12.dxc5 e5 (12...0–0–0!? is still possible.-NSH) 13.c4 the White bishops come into play and Black begins to experience serious difficulties.

Again not 10...0–0? 11.Bxh7+! Kxh7 12.Ng5+ Kg8 13.Qh5 Rfc8 14.Qxf7+ Kh8 15.f4!+-

11.Be2 f6! 12.Re1!








12.Ba3!? deserves attention according to the annotators, but Kasparov points out that Fischer had played this move in the aforesaid game against Mednis, and now the reply 12...fxe5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 is possible.

I think Larsen had a close look at this game and probably had an improvement on the line played before.  But Fischer anticipates him first.  With the White rook on e1, the above line will not work.  14.Nxe5 Qxe5?? and the queen will be lost after Bh5+.-NSH

12...Ng6?!

12...0–0 is safer according to Kasparov.  But after 13.Ba3 ! 13...Rf7 14.Bd6± White has unpleasant pressure according to the annotators.  His other suggestion, 12...fxe5 13.dxe5 0–0 14.Ba3 Rf7! with counterplay on the f-file and against White's weak pawns is better.-NSH

13.Ba3

13.Bf1!? deserves attention.

13...fxe5?!

''The optimistic Larsen believes in his lucky star, otherwise he would have changed his mind and preferred the more cautious 13...0–0–0 or 13...Kf7 14.Bd6 Qa5 15.Qd2  with a slight advantage for White.'' - Kasparov

However, this evaluation appears rather doubtful.  If Black has to free his game, he has to play...fxe5 and exchange a couple of minor pieces.  But this would result in the exposure of his own king.  In the meanwhile the Black queen is out of play on the queenside.-NSH

14.dxe5 Ncxe5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5

15...Qxe5?! 16.Bxc4± (Larsen) 16...Qxc3 17.Bxd5 (17.Qxd5?









Analysis Diagram: after 17.Qxd5?

17...Qxa1!–+) 17...0–0–0 18.Re3 with attack, Levy, Kholmov

16.Qd4!








16.Bh5+!? also deserves attention. For example, 16...Nf7 ? (or 16...g6 17.Qd4) 17.Qf3! threatening both Qxf7 and Qxd5.

16...Ng6

Other alternatives are bad:

16...0–0–0?! 17.Qxa7 Nc6 18.Qe3± Now Kasparov gives 18...e5 (or 18...Qe5 19.Qd2) 19.Bc5. 16...h5?! 17.Qh4!± Timman;

16...Nc6?! 17.Bh5+ Kd8 18.Qxg7±

17.Bh5

17.Qxg7? 0–0–0 with an unclear position. - Suetin

17...Kf7

17...0–0–0  fails to18.Qxa7 b6 ! 19.Qa8+ Qb8 20.Qxb8+ Kxb8 21.a5 !-Timman

I. 21...bxa5 22.Bd6+ Kb7  23.Bxg6!  Securing the e5-square for the other bishop .- Kasparov.  (Here the annotators have considered only 23.Rxa5 Ra8? 24.Rc5!, missing 23...Kc6!)  If 23...hxg6 24.Rxa5 Ra8 25.Rc5 Ra7! 26.Rc7+ Ka8 27.Rxa7+ Kxa7 28.Be5 ±

II.21...Kc7 22.axb6+ Kxb6 23.Bxg6 (Timman's move cited in the CD, 23.Bg4 is met by Kasparov's 23...e5!) 23...hxg6 24.Bd6 Ra8 25.Be5± Kasparov.

III.21...b5 22.Bc5+- Horowitz.
Here White has the upper hand for sure, but I do not see a forced a win. - NSH

18.f4!

Threatening 19.f5 exf5 20.Re7+.-Soltis

18...Rhe8 ! 19.f5! exf5 20.Qxd5+± Kf6

20...Be6 ? 21.Rxe6 ! 21...Rxe6 22.Qxf5+ Rf6 23.Qd5+ Re6 24.Rf1++

Or 20...Re6? 21.Qxf5+ Rf6 22.Re7++- Suetin

21.Bf3








The annotators following contemporary analysis give this move an exclamation mark.  Instead Fischer should have played 21.Bd6!

21...Qc6 22.Qd4+ Kg5 23.Bf3 Qb6 24.Bc5 Qc7 and now Kasparov's move 25.Be7+! wins.  (The annotators offer a long and unconvincing line with 25.h4+?! )  25...Rxe7 26.Rxe7 +-

21...Qb6+ 22.Bc5 Qc6 23.Qd4+ Kg5 24.Bf3 Qc7 25.Be7+ Rxe7 26.Rxe7 +-

21...Ne5 ! 22.Qd4 Kg6 23.Rxe5

23.Bxb7? Qxb7 24.Rxe5 Rxe5 25.Qxe5 Re8 =Timman

23...Qxe5

23...Rxe5? 24.Bd6+-

24.Qxd7 Rad8

Not 24...Qxc3? 25.Qd6+ Kg5 (25...Qf6 26.Qg3+ Qg5 27.Qxg5+ Kxg5 28.Rd1! with the threat of 29. Rd7 wins-Kasparov. Black cannot stop White rook's march with 28...Rad8?? 29.Rxd8 Rxd8 30.Be7++- -NSH) 26.h4+ Kxh4 27.Qf4#; Or if 24...Qe3+ 25.Kf1 Qxc3 26.Qd6+ Kg5 27.h4+ Kxh4 28.Qf4#

25.Qxb7 Qe3+?!

Black misses 25...Qxc3!









Analysis Diagram: after 25...Qxc3!

26.Qc6+ Kg5  Now the imaginative attempt 27.Bc1+ f4 28.h4+ Kf5 29.g4+ fxg3 30.Kg2 Qd4! 31.Kxg3 and White's attack appears stronger according to Timman.  The annotators also award White's position a plus sign citing Timman and then contradict it by showing a drawing line found by Zaitsev.  31...Qxa1 32.Bg4+ Ke5 33.Qc5+ Kf6 and White has only perpetual check.  If he overreaches himself with 34.Bg5+ , he loses to 34...Kf7 35.Bh5+ Kg8 36.Qxc4+ (36.Bxe8 Qe1+ –+) 36...Kh8 37.Bxd8 Qg1+ –+

The other attempt 27.h4+? Kxh4 28.Qc7 Qxa1+ 29.Bc1! Qxc1+ 30.Kh2 also fails to 30...Rd6!!









Analysis Diagram: after 30...Rd6!!

31.Qxd6 (31.g3+ Kg5 32.Qxg7+ Rg6–+ -NSH) 31...Kg5–+ Kasparov.

26.Kf1








26...Rd2?

Played in the heat of the moment.  Black should have secured a safe haven for the king first with 26...h6! 27.Qc6+ Kh7 28.Qc5 (28.Qxc4) 28...Qxc3 29.Rc1 Now Kasparov gives 29...Re3! (29...Re5 suggested in the CD allows counter-chances for White with 30.Qb4) 30.Bb4 (30.Qxf5+ Kh8 31.Bd6 Rxd6! 32.Qf8+ Kh7 33.Qxd6 Rxf3+! 34.gxf3 Qxf3+= draws by perpetual check.) 30...Rxf3+ 31.gxf3 Qxf3+ 32.Qf2 Qh1+ 33.Qg1 Qf3+= and White cannot escape from checks.

27.Qc6+ Re6 28.Bc5!








This is what Larsen must have missed.  He might have seen only the line, 28.Qc5?? Rf2+ 29.Kg1 Rxf3+ –+

28...Rf2+ 29.Kg1 Rxg2+

29...Rxf3+? 30.Bxe3 Rxc6 31.gxf3+- Soltis

30.Kxg2 Qd2+ 31.Kh1 Rxc6 32.Bxc6








32...Qxc3?

This move is a blunder.  Black should not have allowed the capture of his pawn on a7, yielding White a passed pawn.

32...a5!? would have given White a tough fight, if not equality claimed by Larsen.  Timman shows that White has winning chances with  33.Bd4 33...Kh6 34.Rf1!  This line is cited by the annotators.  33.Rg1+ Kf7 34.Bd4 g5 (34...g6 35.Bd5+ is good for White according to the CD.But Kasparov does not agree. He gives 35...Kf8 36.Bxc4 Qxc2 37.Bd5 Qxa4 claiming fighting chances for Black. But after 38.Rb1 White should have winning chances-NSH.35.Bd5+ Kg6 36.Bxc4 Qxc2= is even according to the annotators. But Kasparov shows that White has winning chances after 37.Re1!

33.Rg1+ Kf6 34.Bxa7 f4

If 34...Qxc2 35.a5 Qd3 36.a6 c3 37.Bb7 c2 38.Rc1 Qd1+ 39.Rxd1 cxd1Q+ 40.Bg1 Qb3 41.Ba8 f4 42.a7 f3 43.Be4 Qa2 44.Bxf3+- Kasparov

35.Bb6 Qxc2 36.a5 Qb2 37.Bd8+ Ke6 38.a6 Qa3 39.Bb7 Qc5

The plausible move 39...c3? loses to 40.Bb6 c2 41.a7 c1Q 42.Rxc1 Qxc1+ 43.Bg1+-

40.Rb1 c3 41.Bb6! 1–0








In view of 41...c2 42.Re1+ Qe5 43.Rxe5+ Kxe5 44.a7 c1Q+ 45.Bg1+-

A terrific struggle!
 

Robert James Fischer - Robert Huebner
Interzonal , 09.11.1970

[Notes are excerpted from Huebner's annotations on the CD.]

1.e4 c6

The Caro-Kann Defence.

2.d3

Fischer avoids main lines with 2.d4 d5.

2...d5 3.Nd2 g6 4.Ngf3 Bg7 5.g3 e5 6.Bg2 Ne7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 d4 9.a4 c5








This is a solid continuation; it comes to a King's Indian type of position with reversed colours.  Black has lost a tempo with c7-c6-c5, but White's king's rook is badly placed on e1.  If it moves back to f1, White will have wasted two tempi.  Black's king's knight may not be ideally placed on e7, but it can get to d6 via c8.

10.Nc4 Nbc6 11.c3 Be6 12.cxd4 Bxc4








Black fears what White can do on the queenside and would like to recapture on d4 with the e-pawn.

13.dxc4 exd4

13...cxd4 comes into consideration.  After the text move the position of White's king's rook on e1 receives justification.

14.e5

This is a useful move.  White opens up a pleasing prospect for the g2-bishop and shuts in the g7-bishop. Besides, he threatens Ng5 followed by e6.

14...Qd7








This move prevents the aforesaid threat.  It also prepares ...Rad8 and the manoeuvre Nc6-b4 followed by ... Q-d7-f5-c2.

15.h4

15.Bf4 h6 (The threat is 16.Ng5) 16.h4 Rad8 is a reasonable alternative.

15...d3

Black fears White's kingside initiative and thus tries for immediate counterplay in the centre.

16.Bd2 Rad8 17.Bc3 Nb4 18.Nd4








White tries to introduce tactical complications.  After 18.Bxb4 cxb4 19.Qb3 Nc6 20.Rad1 Rfe8 , the e5-pawn will be exchanged for the d3-pawn, and the position will be a draw.

18...Rfe8

This move is risky as it invites the advance e5-e6.

Black has a better continuation with 18...Nec6 19.Nxc6 (19.e6 Qe7 20.exf7+ (20.Nxc6 bxc6) 20...Qxf7 21.Ne6 Bxc3 22.bxc3 Qxf2+ 23.Kh2 Nc2 with advantage to Black.; 19...bxc6

19.e6 fxe6 20.Nxe6 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Nc2 22.Nxd8 Rxd8 23.Qd2 Nxa1 24.Rxa1 Kg7 25.Re1 Ng8 (?)








It is more accurate to play 25...b6 first.  Black was afraid of 26.Bh3 . But he has a satisfactory defence with 26...Nf5 27.Bxf5 (27.Re5 Nxh4 28.gxh4 (28.Bxd7 ? 28...Nf3+) 28...Qxh3 29.Re7+ Kf8 30.Rxh7 Qg4+ 31.Kf1 Rd7 32.Qh6+ Ke8 33.Rh8+ Ke7 34.Qf8+ Ke6 35.Qe8+ White has perpetual check.; 27...Qxf5 28.Re7+ Kg8 29.Qh6 (29.Rxa7? is met by 29...Re8!) 29...Qf6 30.Qxh7+ Kf8 31.Rxa7 d2 32.Qh6+ , and White must accept perpetual check.

26.Bd5 Qxa4 27.Qxd3 Re8








Black hurries to exchange the remaining pair of rooks to limit White's attacking chances - even at the cost of a pawn.  Its importance should not be underestimated.

Other continuations conceal danger:  27...b6? 28.Re5 (28.Qe3 Qd7 Black has sufficient defensive resources.) 28...Re8 29.Qe3 Nf6 30.Re7+ leads to disaster for Black.; 27...Qd7 28.Qe3 b6 29.h5 Qd6 30.Qg5!? and White has the initiative. - NSH

28.Rxe8 Qxe8 29.Bxb7 Nf6 (?)

29...Qe7 denying White's queen access to d6, is better.  After the retreat of the opposing bishop, Black continues with a7-a5 and Ng8-f6; his drawing chances are considerable.  Now Black's a-pawn is held on a7.

30.Qd6 Qd7 31.Qa6 Qf7

31...Qe7 would be insufficient.  After 32.Qxa7 Ng4 33.Kg2 Qf7 34.f3 Ne3+ 35.Kf2 Black is in difficulties: 35...Qe7 (35...Nxc4 36.Qxc5 and White wins.; 35...Nd1+ 36.Ke2 Nxc3+ 37.Kd3 with excellent winning chances for White.) 36.Qa4 Ng4+ 37.fxg4 Qxb7 38.Qe8 White should have a winning position; on 38...Qb2+ comes 39.Qe2.

32.Qxa7?








After this move White loses a piece and all chances of a win.  If White manages to bring his king over to the queenside, he has winning chances.  32.Kg2 h6 is perhaps the most exact, Black is limited to passive defence.

a) 32...Ng4 33.Bf3 Ne5 (a)33...Nf6 fails to 34.Qd6) 34.Bd5 Qe7 35.f3 White follows with Bd5-e4 and begins to transfer his king to the queenside; Black's situation is not enviable.;

b)32...Ne8 33.Kf1 Nf6 (b)33...Qe7? 34.Qxa7 Nd6 35.Qxc5+-) 34.Bd5 Qe7 35.f3± and Black's position is not easy.

32...Ne4! 33.f3 Nd6

Not 33...Nxg3? 34.Qxc5 Qxb7 35.Qe5+ White has winning chances.

34.Qxc5 Nxb7 35.Qd4+








35.Qe5+ leads of course to perpetual check.  But White would like to see if Black would perhaps overstep the time limit, for he is naturally in no danger of losing.

35...Kg8 36.Kf2 Qe7 37.Qd5+ Kf8 38.h5 gxh5

38...g5? 39.h6 gives White unnecessary counter-chances.; 38...Nc5 39.hxg6 hxg6 40.Qd4=

39.Qxh5 Nc5 40.Qd5 Kg7 41.Qd4+ Kf7 42.Qd5+ Kg7 43.Qd4+ Kf7 44.Qd5+ ½-½
 

The language and word format  in this CD present quite a few problems.  In some games remarks in  German words have not been translated at all.  In other places names are routinely misspelled.  The annotations first need a revamp in terms of language alone.

As for analysis, it is pretty straightforward when it is taken from one source.  However, when it is derived from several sources no attempt is made to sift the grain from the chaff.  In complex games like Fischer-Larsen 1971 presented above, there is a profusion of variations with conflicting evaluation and it can only bewilder the viewer.  These games require some explanatory prose followed by  key variations at critical moments.

Besides, there is a wealth of biographical material on Fischer in contemporary sources and they have not been availed of here as yet.

In my view ChessBase should get its act together and come up with a revised edition.
 

Index of all Reviews


Chess Books & Equipment

 


The
Chessville
Chess Store

 

Reference
Center

 

The Chessville
 Weekly
The Best Free

Chess
Newsletter
On the Planet!

Subscribe
Today -

It's Free!!

The
Chessville
Weekly
Archives


Discussion
Forum


Chess Links


Chess Rules


Visit the
Chessville
Chess Store

 

 

This site is best viewed with Java-Enabled MS Internet Explorer 6 and Netscape 6 browsers set at 800x600 screen size.

Copyright 2002-2009 Chessville.com unless otherwise noted.