slackmebaby
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 28 |   |
Karma: 0
|
re:Botvinnik on Fischer - 2006/05/07 12:59
.
You need to consider that Fischer's combinations were generally sound, while
Kasparov was more of a speculative player, who was not against trying things based only upon "winning chances" and so forth.
In one game, Kasparov sac'd a whole Rook for what appeared to be an attack on the opponent's King. But the attack was quite vaccuous, and he was just down a
Rook for a couple of spite checks. He won anyway -- after all, it was "only" a
Rook!  Another game saw Garry toss out a free pawn, which Karpov merely snatched-up, and then proceeded to win routinely. Oh well -- it might have worked, and once again he would be called a genius!
As Fischer rarely played really strong opponents in endgames, this seems to be based on Fischer's successes in his brief, peak period.
Try to consider that Kasparov faced such giants as Karpov in the endgame, while Bobby was facing off against players like Taimanov, who couldn't hold a simple, drawn endgame against Bobby's mother.
I recall that Botvinnik, in his own annotations to their game between each other, pointed out how Bobby flubbed the endgame and carelessly allowed him to escape with a draw. He further refuted Fischer's post-game analysis of a disputed endgame position which could have arisen from that game. Then
Kasparov (the "weak" endgame player) found another refutation of Bobby's analysis -- though he was just a kid.
Of course, Fischer's strong analytical bias had no ill-effects on his actual results. On the contrary, it caused him to strive for -- and often achieve -- wins where others would have settled for draws because the position was not really favorable, though Bobby always thought he stood better.
Against the single piece of "evidence" Botvinnik gave (game 13, 1972 match vs. Spassky) I would juxtapose their first game from that same match for a better perspective on Fischer's reputed endgame skill.
In that game, Spassky, having correctly calculated that Fischer cound not safely take his undefended h-pawn, moved his King toward the center. In reply,
Fischer blundered by taking that h-pawn, which he had failed to see would lead to his Bishop becomming trapped. Duh!
This theme, of voracious pawn-grabbing, is one which ran throughout Fischer's career. And here we see an example of the flaw affecting his endgame, though more often it was the opening phase which suffered..
---------
I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.
Popular posts by slackmebaby
Bobby Fischer is the greatest an...
I LOST 4 games STRAIGHT (HELP ME...
Knight and Bishop Mate?
|
post new topic