Bobby Fischer Brilliancy Confuses Commentators!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 апр 2024
- Click here to book a call with me: calendly.com/oithornley/chess...
Follow me on instagram: / oithornley
In today's video, I go through the game Robert Byrne vs Bobby Fischer, which is an all-time classic game where Fischer displays an incredible understanding of imbalance in a chess position. I provide some analysis and commentary on the game. Hope you enjoy.
I like the quote you found in reference to Burn’s rook dilemma.
“Whenever you have to make a rook move and both rooks are available for said move. You should evaluate which rook to move. And and once you’re made up your mind, move the other rook”😂😂😂
Indeed one of the most remarkable games in the great career of Bobby Fischer that I have seen a couple of times before, but it was such a joy to relive it commentated by a young chess enthusiastic like you. Keep up the good work man, appreciate it.
And don't think I am underestimating the depth of your skills of playing and understanding the game of chess by referring you as a enthusiastic.
Thanks for a recap of a classic Fischer game. An opening leads to a seemingly quiet, balanced looking position, then suddenly all of Fischer's pieces start flowing toward the enemy king, ending in a checkmate.
I bet those commentators felt like fools for not having followed @oithornley and therefore not understanding the game
Interesting video, thanks for posting. I'm not expert at Chess, but I love these sorts of videos. There's also something deeply intriguing about the minds of great Chess players, they're very unique people.
I wonder whether Fischer calculated all those branches, or just had a strong sense of how powerful it would be to leave the White king exposed on the light squares. I also wonder what's available if the White king moves to f2 instead of f1.
This is why i am for changing the scoring of chess. Making it 0,1 for loss, but a 0 for resignation. If you play ten games and just refuse to resign, you get one point.
Yes, but players could either let the clock run out or just sac every piece in an underwhelming "I don't want to play anymore" way.
@@davidcotham1939 True. You kind of need "unsports-like behaviour" rule in that place.
Tartakover quotes are hilarious. There's an anecdote about him making a speech regarding some rule in the first meeting of a chess governing body (this was before FIDE), and the vote was about to be unanimous. Tartakover's speech swung all the voters around to his point of view, with one exception -- Tartakover himself.
😂 legendary
"You're all followers."
The deflections combined with pins were very nice indeed.
Great commentary!
Nice commentary.
Bobby played like Stockfish. It boggles my mind what would happen today against the perfect play of Stockfish 16 !
I would never have found this idea, this is the type of thing that sets the great GM's apart from everyone else.
Another Bobby Fischer game that made the commentators freak out was his... fifth(?) game against Petrosian in the 71 Candidates tournament. Fischer has Petrosian completely bound up, and is moving every single piece, including the king, to its perfect square before he takes his advanced, supported, knight and swaps it out for Petrosians's bishop, which was bad and was stuck on e7 for the whole game.
The press room went berzerk, with Miguel Najdorf saying to himself "he's crazy... such a knight! How could he swap such a knight for such a terrrrrrible bishop?" (To find out why, Petrosian, who understood perfectly well what was going on, explained it in his notes). But Robert Byrne's (incorrect) explanation was "nobody knew Bobby like I did. And Bobby LOVED bishops"
After seeing this game, I can understand why Robert Byrne might have thought that. Anyway, it's a good game, and an example of a total wipeout, kind of like this one. Sometimes a complete positional obliteration is more instructive than all the K v. K games, or Carlsen's late middlegame grinds, where the whole position hangs on a tiny nuance that's invisible to all but the strongest players.
not bad commentary you will get a RUclips flow you have great ideas don't give up.
Thank you for your kind comment :) I dont have any plans to stop posting
Excellent video. Thank you for sharing.
Fischer is the greatest ever, in my opinion. In the 1971 Candidates Fisher beat Mark Taimanov and Bent Larsen, 6-0, a feat never achieved before or after. No other GM has beaten any other GM at a candidates 6-0. Fischer also has the highest consecutive wins over other GM's standing at 20 in a row. Magnus Carlsen has 6 consectuive wins.
Maybe he is but I wish everyone wouldn't trot out stats like these which are really incomparable across different eras as if they are meaningful. The game and the ability of other GMs was very different in Fischer's era and it is impossible to say what someone who could win 20 in a row then would do now.
There are boxers from years ago with 300+ professional wins, something that isn't even remotely possible now, that doesn't mean the mighty Len Wickwar was the greatest boxer ever, he just has stats from a different era!
@@mattc3581 The Soviet chess machine produced some amazing players. Bobby wasn't playing weaklings.
Also because in these matches they would start to chase once they're down, taking extra risks and leading to accepting worse positions. Almost no one plays Magnus in must win situations@@mattc3581
@@mattc3581I disagree. Not everything can be compared with things from different eras, but consecutive wins (with no draws) between GMs is comparative. All participants are playing with the same knowledge of the times and in the case of the 13 candidate matches consecutive wins (6 Taminov, 6 Larson, 1 Petrosian) are were highly rated GMs where many chess people of that time thought Larson would beat Fischer and then Petrosian would beat Fischer. I agree boxer wins is not comparable or GM ratings are not comparable (because of rating inflation), but why would you say that consecutive wins is not comparable?
@@jmadratz I say not comparable because the current era with computers that are vastly stronger than humans it makes it very easy to analyse lines and work out what is strong and what is a blunder. As a result modern GMs, not even super GMs, are vastly more prepared to know the best moves in many many more lines than they would have done in Fischer's era. Early game weaknesses as a result of sub-optimal moves are much less likely in the current GM play, not because players are better but because the computer assisted learning helps understand what moves are weak and why.
We literally see Carlsen playing opening moves like a3, obviously not the best, simply to get opponents out of lines they know so they are more likely to make tactical errors he can exploit. I feel Fischer's opponent's though just as strong fundamentally would likely have made more weak moves during the early and mid game and thus would have been easier for one of the greatest of all time to beat consistently.
It is interesting you see 'accuracy' comparisons of Fischer's games and Carlsen's and Fischer I think comes out ahead, though again this ignores the fact that Carlsen is deliberately making sub-optimal moves to complicate positions. What would be more interesting would be to see the accuracy stats for the opponent's they were playing, I haven't ever seen this, but I would suspect that Carlsen's opponents are considerably more accurate. This would perhaps backup (or not) my arguments above.
Good commentary and great find. I never saw any other chess RUclipsr review this game and we all know they are always looking for Bobby Fischer games to analyze and review because they are money makers .
Thanks! It's one of my favourites, since it's a great way to teach how a rook is not always worth more than a bishop or a knight
The Bishop got our boy alittle happy.... well it wouldnt be the first time a Bishop did that😂
Absolutely amazing game, to state the obvious. For what it's worth, I rate Bobby as number 1, even ahead of Magnus and Garry, albeit in the classical format. Magnus reigns supreme in all other variations of the game. Yes, Bobby couldn't show what he had "created" as Robert saw the writing on the wall! Side note, I found the rook advice subtly perfect! Ha! Subscribed. All.
Thanks for comment Greg! Fischer is also my favourite as I love his dynamic playstyle. Maybe it wouldn't do as well in today's game but it's crazy to see how engine-like he was before engines even existed.
Bobby also had a reputation as an amazing speed chess player, although I don't think they even recorded the speed chess games back then.
@@michaels4255 Ah, fascinating... so he might of done well with the shorter versions of the game, too... I mean in the context of the top players.
Robert Byrne was the brother of Donald Byrne the player that lost the Game of the Century to a 13 year old Fischer. Robert Byrne later became the editor of the NEW YORK TIMES chess column.
Both very good players. Just a shame they're both known best for being beaten by Fischer 🤣
Lol thanks I thought he had misspoken when I heard that at first 😂
Kind of like Andre the Giant against the wild Samoans brothers.
What was the losing move? Obviously, there had to be one, but it ain't obvious. Maybe a chess engine would say.
Utterly remarkable ... but ... then again, I'm given to understatement. We miss Bobby very much.
Great video! 👍 Good length for detail and still not 45 minutes or clickbait (Levy... the grandmaster of clickbait!).
To be honest Tartakower was born or sth like this in Austro-Hungarian empire - on the country of todays Russia, he was representing Poland in some tournaments but he was more "international" player, i think mainly with french citizenship. For sure he had created many many quotes - more than possible :). Similar was Winawer - he was born in country of Poland but that country didnt exist at the time of his birth :( Similarly Tarrasch was born in Breslau and Breslau is now part of Poland not Germany.
I just checked that Winawer was born in Congress Poland, a special polish "independent/semi autonomous" polity/state after Napoleon wars 1815 and that Tartakower was using french citizenship after 1948
It is amazing how you are embarrassing yourself with luck of knowledge about geography.
@@mihaimihai5801 What are you embarrassing yourself about?
Really deep thinking.
14:24 "ABSOLUTELY FILTHY" ??? ... You mean, it is a genius move!
Haha yeah that's just what we say in the UK when something is really good
@@oithornley yeh :) It's like saying "wicked" meaning brilliant! or badas. in American eng. Great commentary mate.
"Wonderful bishop marvelous" "Rook and Bishop absolutely disgusting pieces" Perhaps how you feel about the bishop depends if you are playing black or white pieces.
Bobby Fischer = the most brilliant chess player of all time
No such word as brilliancy ffs
Are you able to use google? 🤡
@@oithornley I yield. You seem to have me in checkmate, mate
Read Walter Scott's Ivanhoe and get back to us.
Fischer's games are full of imagination, in contrast to that Magnus dude, who is overrated and plays a lot of boring chess. Every fan of great chess should own Fischer's MY 60 MEMORABLE GAMES. Carlsen sucks.