Click here
to look for "chess" with the Google search engine.
|
(Navigation bar ******* © A.J. Goldsby, **************** Click HERE **************** Click HERE ****************
**************** Buy a book
|
James O'Fee - of Impala Publications - writes:<< "Before computers, Grandmasters would rack their brains to analyse positions correctly. In their first meeting at the Varna Olympiad in 1962, Bobby Fischer drew with World Champion, Mikhail Botvinnik. In his book ‘My 60 Memorable Games’ [London, 1969], Fischer claimed that he was winning at one point and threw away the win. Botvinnik claimed that he always had the draw in hand and passed the problem over to a young student, Garry Kasparov, to prove the matter." "Later
in life, the same Garry Kasparov once challenged his rival, Anatoly Karpov,
to an ‘analysis match’. Kasparov wanted to prove that, not only was he
better than Karpov over the board, but that he was better at analysis, too." -
Editor James O'Fee, Blog
entry
for Tuesday, June 06, 2006. The mighty clash, Botvinnik vs. Fischer.
The PGN score for this contest
[Event "Varna ol (Men) fin-A"] 1/2 - 1/2 [ replay, (on another site) Many good comments there as well. ] The particulars of this game.First
off, let me state that I have no interest in analyzing this game, at least not
right now. There are many good sources for this, allow me to recommend just three. (BTW, I have all 3.)
The analysis of these three authors leaves almost no stone unturned. GM Larry Evans writes:< Game # 39, "The confrontation" > << This dramatic meeting between the generations took place on board 1 after it was rumored that Botvinnik would be given a "rest day" against the American team. But it was fated that Fischer, at last, albeit with Black, would have a crack at the world champion. >> << Walking into a prepared variation, Fischer promptly refutes it. "The reader can guess that my equanimity was wrecked," confesses Botvinnik, whose notes are incorporated here. Nervously, he proceeds to run his still tenable position downhill. But Fischer, instead of nursing his winning advantage, simplifies too quickly, and reaches an adjournment where victory is problematical. After a sleepless night of analysis, Botvinnik finds a stunning defense. Fischer engages in a seemingly harmless transposition of moves (51...P-QN4), and falls into a pit -- throwing away the win he maintains was still there. >> -
GM Larry Evans ... in his introductory notes to this game - in Fischer's classic
book, see #1 above.
My thoughts on this classic chessical encounter:Fischer was clearly prepared for his opponent's opening. Bobby should have been out-gunned, after all, he was just one man, and the Soviet chess players usually worked as a team. However Fischer refuted Botvinnik's opening on the spot. (Fischer's opening play can only be described as magnificent.) But I think there were a lot of nerves {pride} at stake here; Fischer was (too) eager to prove himself, and Botvinnik was anxious not to lose his first chess encounter with the former prodigy and well-known talent - that was Bobby Fischer in his younger days. (Circa the early 1960's, when this contest was actually played.) I have no doubt - that were I to subject this game and its analysis to a deep and thorough investigation - I would probably discover many new or hidden points. [And this is not a boast, just an observation. Much of this material is nearly fifty years old, the giant strides that computers have made in the last 5-10 years almost guarantees that new discoveries would be made. (And this is the point of O'Fee's post ... and that is why I quoted him here.)] Soon much of this ending will be subjected to the kind of analysis ... where every single possible position is completely mapped out. (Many of the endings, from just three pieces, all the way to seven or more pieces ... have been so accounted for - a little something called "The Nalimov Endgame Tablebases.") At that point in time, it will be ascertained for a fact whether or not Fischer ever had a win, and what was missed (or not missed) in this extremely complex ending. And until then, much of the hollering and yelling ... is just that. (A lot of hot air!) Most people may not know that Fischer and Botvinnik thought {seriously} about playing a WCS match. At one time, Fischer claimed to have the backing for such a match, but it was doubtful that the Soviet machinery of communist-controlled sports' organizations would have ever allowed such an event to take place. (Botvinnik would have had too much to lose.) Its a pity too - the world might have seen some really interesting games. I also do not think Fischer was ever really objective about this game ... and his analysis strongly reflects this. Take for example Botvinnik's 25th move, NxN/e6. Fischer strongly damns this play and assigns a whole question mark to it. ("?") For close to 10 years, this exchange was the first choice of strong computer programs, and even today, it does not cause a significant change in the way that computers "score" this position. (Which is reflected by their numerical evaluation of any position.) I tend to lean towards 25.Bg3 as being the best move for White, while Dr./GM R. Huebner (and Botvinnik himself!) endorsed Bh2. (Fischer liked 25.Be3, and gave this as best in his notes to the game.) And while it is possible that Botvinnik's move was not the most accurate -- at worst it only a minor lapse, and not the major gaffe that Fischer made it out to be. (And this is backed up by the fact that Soltis - and several other authors - have given this play no mark at all in their annotations to this struggle.) I have studied this game since before my teenage years, in my opinion, there is much analytical territory that has yet to be thoroughly mapped out. For example, on move forty, Fischer played 40...Kg5; and most commentators give this move without any comment at all. Yet when I was 14 or 15, I was convinced that this was the wrong move, the Black King is stuck there for some time ... and is subsequently (somewhat) out of play. (I wanted to play either 40...P-KR4 or 40...PKN4.) And it is gratifying for me to learn that Fritz 9 ... after several hours of {machine} analysis ... is agreeing with me on this point.
Of course, not all the analysis of this game is bad, some hits the nail right on the head. For example, when I was a young lad, one of the things that I loved to do was anchor a Knight to a pawn. I thought it was a magical position when I could achieve this ... especially when the Knight and the anchor Pawn were on the opposite-color square of my opponent's Bishop. This set-up seemed impervious and I thought I could not lose when I gained such an ideal fortress. That is why I was mystified when Fischer played 41...Ne4+?; voluntarily surrendering his "magic" Knight for a ho-hum Bishop. (And even the chess programs see a rather sizable turnaround in their evaluations after this errant play by Fischer.) One can only imagine that Fischer was so overcome with an attack of nerves, that his desire to reach a 'won' ending overpowered his normally machine-like judgment. ******* And probably the most crucial part of the analysis came in the R+P ending. In one position, Fischer claimed a clear win, but our entire chess club - when I was still a teenager - was unable to divine the solution ... despite repeated attempts and many hours of throwing the pieces about. (See the section below.)
GM Mikhail Botvinnik (2774) - GM Robert J. Fischer (2738);
|
7Q/p7/8/8/7R/k4K2/5P2/rq6 b
(White's last move was 64.P-R8, {= Q}; (64.h8=Q); so it is Black to move in the position given above.
Fischer notes that both parties - each, working independently of the other - reached this key position in their analysis of this historic chess meeting!
*****************************************************************************
(Now Bobby's
main line is, and the following is a direct quote:)
"Correct is
64...Qb3+!; 65.Ke2 Qd1+; 66.Ke3 Rb1!!;
67.Qf8+ Ka2; "- / +"
and the White King will be without shelter from the coming avalanche of checks."
- GM Robert J. Fischer.
Of course, this is all nonsense, I have analyzed this position dozens of times over the years. Fritz 9 ... after several sessions of analysis ... was never able to find anything more than a simple perpetual check. {A draw that comes about after a series of checks can be repeated almost indefinitely.} (It is also possible that some of Fischer's moves - in this particular line - were not the best.)
The key move (now) will be 68.Qc5!!, ("=") and Black is unable to make any real progress.
[ B.C., (before computers); a 13-year old schoolboy ... by the name of Garry Kasparov discovered this move, and Fritz confirms that this is the correct try for White. After Qc5, White's game holds together quite nicely - there is no win. (And Kasparov was not the first to have discovered 68.Qc5. And Garry even found a second, unique way to draw that begins with 67.Rc4! See the book, <Russians versus Fischer> game # 55, and page # 117 for more details.) ]
This is a truly legendary game of chess, by two of the best players to ever play the game. (I believe that this was the only time these two chess giants ever met over the board.) Perhaps it is fitting that the game ended in a draw ...
And as great as this chess game is, this is also one of those rare contests where the stories that surround the struggle are as good as (or better) than the game itself!
A nice article, (with lots of links); on Bobby Fischer. (One on Botvinnik.)
An online encyclopedia - a useful link to have to look up relevant chess matters.
Click HERE to go (return) to my home page. (My main {GC} chess site.)
Click HERE to go (return) to my site map.
Click HERE to go to my domain.
Click HERE to go (return) to the blog pages of Impala Publishing.
Click HERE to see first mention of this article on the Impala site.
Click HERE to go to the next "blog-back" article. (On Alekhine's faked games.)
(Or just use the "back button" on your web browser.)
*******
This page was created in June 2006, and was posted on June 12th, 2006.
It was last edited on: Thursday, June 25, 2009 , 12:58 AM .
Copyright (©) LM A.J. Goldsby, 2009.
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 2009. All rights reserved.