Steinitz would have loved this game. Fischer patiently accumulated small strategic advantages until they could be exploited tactically. "Tactics flow from a superior position!"
I'll have to watch some studies of steinitz games then. That bishop b3 move hit me like the monks hit Dr. Strange lmao. It looks like nothing to a low elo dummy like me at first, but seeing what it lead to was just awesome to behold
It's quite something to see how Bobby, at his best, could make anyone look mediocre. I've seen some beautiful games played by Taimanov for instance, and yet Bobby defeated him 6 - 0 in the Candidates. Even given that score, I don't think it would be exactly fair to say that he crushed him (as Fischer himself admitted, saying the final score in no way reflected the relative strength of his opponent). He did crush Larsen, however (also 6 - 0), which must have been very sweet as Larsen had boasted he would 'Explode the Fischer myth'. Larsen got Bent in that one.
What a masterpiece, indeed! Thank you for this very important example, which you, as you always do, clearly and succinctly illustrate in this video! As to where Keres may have made mistakes, if there are any, I think they are small in number and strategic (not tactical) in nature. In sum, it seems Black did not play according to a Fischer maxim that you have highlighted in other videos; always play to control the center. Also, not only does Fischer always play to control the center and plays without any mistake that I can identify, he takes advantage of all of Keres's inaccuracies/mistakes, however small they may be. A few observations of the play in the late opening and early middle game stages that I would offer: A. I think ...Na5, while it does attack White's (ultimately lethal) light-squared bishop, reduces Black's ability to control the center. Fischer capitalizes two moves later with d4. B. Later, Black's ...Nd7, which Fischer mentions and as you note later, moves a piece away from Black's king, a strategic risk with little upside because (a) the queen side is already quite fortified for both White and Black and (b) using this knight as Black's lone defense of d5 renders it stuck for the time being. Moreover, while this move stabilizes Black's e5 pawn, it blocks Black's light-squared bishop and reduces the mobility of the queen in the short-term. Also, now the king side of the board has much open space. While Black has control of g5, White controls f5 and has easy paths to controlling h5, until Black's g6, which as you noted opens up f6 and h6 for White, ultimately deadly with White's Bh6. I think too that these advantages that White gains can be traced in part to ...Na5, above. C. I think you make an excellent point about Black not playing ...c6. This contributes to Black's loss of d5 as you point out, which is another example of Black weakening control of the center. To be fair, Black's ...Be6 does aim to control d5, as you illustrated, and continues to help guard the king side, yet Fischer immediately crushes these with Nd5, as you also point out. This too I think can be traced to ...Na5: White grabbed d4 as noted above; White later used the d4 pawn in seizing control of d5. Throughout these, Black's knight on a5 continues to offer little help, and Black has too many other urgent problems to address, to which this knight can't directly contribute. This knight on the rim does indeed appear to be dim! And from here on, much of the rest of the game has a Zugzwang feel to it; It's too late for Black to fend off White's relentless sequence of attacks that you mentioned. Can Black's demise ultimately be the result of ...Na5 (in A, above) so early in the game? If so, yet again we see how dominant Fischer was, even against other all-time greats such as Keres.
He probably would have had there not been an occupation of his home country and then WW2. His peak years where 1937-1945 when there was a war (most of the time).
Korchnoi was great. Also David Bronstein and Carl Schlechter, who drew world championship matches, had amazing talent. Samuel Reschevsky from Keres' generation, was with Keres one of the world's top players for decades.
The word 'literally' is superfluous in your sentence, and the word 'for' is literally an outright grammar mistake. I regret for you not literally reading literature earlier in your life. I'm pretty sure that the reason you are bad at chess has nothing to do with the point in life that chess was introduced to it. Your motivation comes from appearances and not from pure love of the game.
Paul Keres is one of my favorite players, and he played Fischer very competitively. I think he got over-committed on the queen side here. Nevertheless, an attacking masterpiece from Fischer. It's almost comical how the attacks keep coming one after the other where Keres has exactly one move to not lose on the spot. It might be fun to show one of the games in which Gentleman Paul triumphed over Fischer. Great game and great analysis as always!
Dear Chessdawg… Thank you very much for showing us HOW white wins the endgame using the minimal 2 v 1 queenside pawn majority. Interesting how even after his mating attack was rebuffed Fischer converted his minimal king advantages into a winning endgame - with the proper technique
After all those attacks, Keres was able to get out of it only down a pawn. It's instructive to see how chess is played at the highest levels. I would have considered my attack a failure if that's all it produced. But Fischer took what he could get, and then knew how to win a tough endgame position against a formidable opponent like Keres.
This is why Fischer was the best of all time. Only he could win such legendary victories against Soviet players. This game is an example of strangulation where the opponent is completely helpless.
I think this is a classic example and battle, between two warriors strangling each other under water but one of the fighters has mastered the art of holding his breath. You know what im saying…
If by "hard to spot a mistake" is stated because of SF analysis (I haven't checked), I think that may just involve some insane 3800 defensive skills that are wholly irrelevant/unfindable in human chess. And, interestingly, with us being more in tune with patzer (human) play, it's clear early on white has an easier position to navigate. The stress of black knowing that...combined with white knowing black knows that...means white gets to enjoy a decided psychological advantage. And in human play, that's quite material.
Funny thing, I was looking at this game yesterday in my 60 memorable games and the mistakes were Qc7?!, Nxd5, (Bxd5 is better), Qb8?! and Nc4?. According to the engine after Nc4 Nh6! is the best. Great game by Fischer and great recap by you
This was the tournament Fischer needed because what he needed was a good dose of a kick in the ass. He took some horrible losses out of positions that were relatively easy. Bobby's conceit towards players did him in. This is the tournament where Bobby learned it wasn't conceit towards players that would make him great. Only great play will make him great. It may well be the tournament that proved to Bobby that he would have to work and study hard to beat the Soviets later in his career. This is also the tournament Tal returned to shortly after kidney surgery. So his play wasn't exactly up to his usual high quality.
I think the title suggests chess is a black-and-white game, with right moves or wrong moves. So how can one lose if the player makes no mistakes?! In reality, it’s more about degrees of optimal moves or less optimal moves, and both come in varying degrees. If an opponent makes no outright mistakes but plays less optimal moves than possible, Fischer can slowly maneuver the game into a more favorable position for himself.
If white can win without black committing inaccuracies, that proves chess is not draw. Thats bad news for chess. Chess is solved. I have been telling to anyone willing to listen that chess is proven a draw by using the chess variant wherein white's e pawn is already on e4 as starting position for the game. This additional advantage is not enough for white to find an algorithm to win. And that implies it cannot find as well in our classical chess.
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life"
Dam.
-Jean-Luc Picard, ST:TNG
When Star Trek was good!
It just means things in life come in degrees :)
Picard talking to Lieutenant Commander Data
I thank you for additionally explaining how the game would be finished off
Steinitz would have loved this game. Fischer patiently accumulated small strategic advantages until they could be exploited tactically. "Tactics flow from a superior position!"
I'll have to watch some studies of steinitz games then. That bishop b3 move hit me like the monks hit Dr. Strange lmao. It looks like nothing to a low elo dummy like me at first, but seeing what it lead to was just awesome to behold
Instructive game as always. Thanks for sharing. I'll study it carefully
It's quite something to see how Bobby, at his best, could make anyone look mediocre. I've seen some beautiful games played by Taimanov for instance, and yet Bobby defeated him 6 - 0 in the Candidates. Even given that score, I don't think it would be exactly fair to say that he crushed him (as Fischer himself admitted, saying the final score in no way reflected the relative strength of his opponent). He did crush Larsen, however (also 6 - 0), which must have been very sweet as Larsen had boasted he would 'Explode the Fischer myth'. Larsen got Bent in that one.
I see what you did there
@@scottrackley4457 Thank you. I'm here all week :)
Lowkey: chess dawg is my favorite chess channel…and there are some great chess channels.
What a masterpiece, indeed! Thank you for this very important example, which you, as you always do, clearly and succinctly illustrate in this video!
As to where Keres may have made mistakes, if there are any, I think they are small in number and strategic (not tactical) in nature. In sum, it seems Black did not play according to a Fischer maxim that you have highlighted in other videos; always play to control the center. Also, not only does Fischer always play to control the center and plays without any mistake that I can identify, he takes advantage of all of Keres's inaccuracies/mistakes, however small they may be.
A few observations of the play in the late opening and early middle game stages that I would offer:
A. I think ...Na5, while it does attack White's (ultimately lethal) light-squared bishop, reduces Black's ability to control the center. Fischer capitalizes two moves later with d4.
B. Later, Black's ...Nd7, which Fischer mentions and as you note later, moves a piece away from Black's king, a strategic risk with little upside because (a) the queen side is already quite fortified for both White and Black and (b) using this knight as Black's lone defense of d5 renders it stuck for the time being. Moreover, while this move stabilizes Black's e5 pawn, it blocks Black's light-squared bishop and reduces the mobility of the queen in the short-term. Also, now the king side of the board has much open space. While Black has control of g5, White controls f5 and has easy paths to controlling h5, until Black's g6, which as you noted opens up f6 and h6 for White, ultimately deadly with White's Bh6. I think too that these advantages that White gains can be traced in part to ...Na5, above.
C. I think you make an excellent point about Black not playing ...c6. This contributes to Black's loss of d5 as you point out, which is another example of Black weakening control of the center. To be fair, Black's ...Be6 does aim to control d5, as you illustrated, and continues to help guard the king side, yet Fischer immediately crushes these with Nd5, as you also point out. This too I think can be traced to ...Na5: White grabbed d4 as noted above; White later used the d4 pawn in seizing control of d5.
Throughout these, Black's knight on a5 continues to offer little help, and Black has too many other urgent problems to address, to which this knight can't directly contribute. This knight on the rim does indeed appear to be dim! And from here on, much of the rest of the game has a Zugzwang feel to it; It's too late for Black to fend off White's relentless sequence of attacks that you mentioned.
Can Black's demise ultimately be the result of ...Na5 (in A, above) so early in the game? If so, yet again we see how dominant Fischer was, even against other all-time greats such as Keres.
What's your ELO? Just wondering what it takes to analyze a position like this.
Those two open files early in the center.
@tfreej920 if he wasn't already lost, I think Keres was lost after missing that first chance to trade the opposing D file rooks.
Off all my dawgs, Chessdawg is the Main Dawg.
Excellent explanation! Really enjoyed it. Thank you very! Much!!!!❤
Paul Keres is really an underrated player and it's hard to believe that he didn't win the world championship in his entire career.
He probably would have had there not been an occupation of his home country and then WW2. His peak years where 1937-1945 when there was a war (most of the time).
Relentless attacking chess by the legend Fischer!
... and Paul Keres was no slouch either. He and Viktor Korchnoi are considered the 2 best chess players never to have won the World Championship. 😮
Korchnoi was great. Also David Bronstein and Carl Schlechter, who drew world championship matches, had amazing talent. Samuel Reschevsky from Keres' generation, was with Keres one of the world's top players for decades.
How about reubin fine and reshessky and
I think you're leaving out Rashid Nezhmetdinov.
Great game! Thank you for posting it!
I literally regret for not playing chess early in my life
I know bro, im super good looking but i suck at chess.
The word 'literally' is superfluous in your sentence, and the word 'for' is literally an outright grammar mistake.
I regret for you not literally reading literature earlier in your life.
I'm pretty sure that the reason you are bad at chess has nothing to do with the point in life that chess was introduced to it. Your motivation comes from appearances and not from pure love of the game.
@@TheYayutubeundue criticism I guess it makes you feel good ? You probably suck at chess 😅
Fantastic Game from Fischer loved the offense he played in this game an attacking machine unleashed great game from Keres as well Thanks a lot 😊♟️‼️
Paul Keres is one of my favorite players, and he played Fischer very competitively. I think he got over-committed on the queen side here.
Nevertheless, an attacking masterpiece from Fischer. It's almost comical how the attacks keep coming one after the other where Keres has exactly one move to not lose on the spot.
It might be fun to show one of the games in which Gentleman Paul triumphed over Fischer.
Great game and great analysis as always!
5:51 in a hundred years AI and modern computers will validate that the Bishop to H6 was the best move. That Bishop was a beast lol
Dear Chessdawg… Thank you very much for showing us HOW white wins the endgame using the minimal 2 v 1 queenside pawn majority. Interesting how even after his mating attack was rebuffed Fischer converted his minimal king advantages into a winning endgame - with the proper technique
Bobby got his nickname "The Dragon Slayer" from beating Keres in the 1950's. I think, then lived up to it here.
After all those attacks, Keres was able to get out of it only down a pawn. It's instructive to see how chess is played at the highest levels. I would have considered my attack a failure if that's all it produced. But Fischer took what he could get, and then knew how to win a tough endgame position against a formidable opponent like Keres.
This is why Fischer was the best of all time. Only he could win such legendary victories against Soviet players. This game is an example of strangulation where the opponent is completely helpless.
I think this is a classic example and battle, between two warriors strangling each other under water but one of the fighters has mastered the art of holding his breath. You know what im saying…
@@zatoichimasseur6767 very well said, thank you
@@zatoichimasseur6767 Never attempt to enter the water to fight an alligator.
If by "hard to spot a mistake" is stated because of SF analysis (I haven't checked), I think that may just involve some insane 3800 defensive skills that are wholly irrelevant/unfindable in human chess. And, interestingly, with us being more in tune with patzer (human) play, it's clear early on white has an easier position to navigate. The stress of black knowing that...combined with white knowing black knows that...means white gets to enjoy a decided psychological advantage. And in human play, that's quite material.
Funny thing, I was looking at this game yesterday in my 60 memorable games and the mistakes were Qc7?!, Nxd5, (Bxd5 is better), Qb8?! and Nc4?. According to the engine after Nc4 Nh6! is the best. Great game by Fischer and great recap by you
Just beautiful chess!❤
1:26. Fischer played h3 to keep black out of g4, So why did not black occupy g4 instead of castling?
White cannot play d4 before h3 but if black gets a bishop to g4 then white changes plans to h3 d3 nd2 nf1 ng3.
Both are playable for both sides
You make a lot of bobby Fisher videos but you always leave out his age. Which makes it more impressive.
Great game ad great channel! 10:08 Bf8 wins the exchange therefore isn't that better than Bg5 (?)
This was the tournament Fischer needed because what he needed was a good dose of a kick in the ass. He took some horrible losses out of positions that were relatively easy. Bobby's conceit towards players did him in. This is the tournament where Bobby learned it wasn't conceit towards players that would make him great. Only great play will make him great. It may well be the tournament that proved to Bobby that he would have to work and study hard to beat the Soviets later in his career. This is also the tournament Tal returned to shortly after kidney surgery. So his play wasn't exactly up to his usual high quality.
Fischer drew a lot of his games. Read the complete games of Bobby Fischer from 1955 to 1972 , when he became world champion.
I think the title suggests chess is a black-and-white game, with right moves or wrong moves. So how can one lose if the player makes no mistakes?!
In reality, it’s more about degrees of optimal moves or less optimal moves, and both come in varying degrees. If an opponent makes no outright mistakes but plays less optimal moves than possible, Fischer can slowly maneuver the game into a more favorable position for himself.
Black made mistakes. It’s just clickbait
Na5 is a very dubious move.
👍
I would have lost that game about 20 times.
Keres biggest mistake was turning up for the game.
Keres is the best player to never win the world title
Is it rally ker-es or ke-res?
g6 was terrible. Amateur move.
If white can win without black committing inaccuracies, that proves chess is not draw. Thats bad news for chess. Chess is solved. I have been telling to anyone willing to listen that chess is proven a draw by using the chess variant wherein white's e pawn is already on e4 as starting position for the game. This additional advantage is not enough for white to find an algorithm to win. And that implies it cannot find as well in our classical chess.