Fischer Stuns The Commentators With Triple Brilliancy! They Said He Lost And Then Gave Him A Prize!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Bobby Fischer's chess is from ANOTHER PLANET! Watch him demolish this top GM in a perormance that was called "more witchcraft than chess". If you don't believe Bobby Fischer would give Magnus Carlsen a serious run for his money today, then this game is for you!
It is a bit unfair to try and compare Fischer to modern Grandmasters when modern Grandmasters have access to resources that Fischer could not even dream of.
Yeah, you can only speculate on raw ability
i think it's worth noting that when bobby was rated nearly 2800 (2785), his nearest competitor was rated 2660 (spassky). amazing this was 50 years ago. i truly think he would've given carlsen a run for his money - especially with the aid of computers
@@crackawood
I wonder what Bobby's rating would have been after his 20 game winning streak?
it is a bit unfair to try and limit what Fisher could not dream of. The man has in fact proven that he can imagine better than most.
@@ors5712but he stopped playing chess abruptly, sorry but this diminished his standing in my eyes since, we simply don’t know if his brilliancy would have continued
I've been looking at chess games (going over them from books) since 1972. I'm sure I have replayed this particular game at least 30 or more times over the years. It's my favorite game of all time, hands down! Playing it through is like listening to an exquisite piece of music. It's just so elegant and perfect.
Thanks for taking me on this journey again, in your inimitable clear and enjoyable way.
I don't know if you ever watched the classic movie THE WIZARD OF OZ. There is a point in the movie when it changes from black-and-white to color. That's what this game has always reminded me of. You think you're looking at one thing, and then -- like that transposition from black and white to color -- it miraculously transforms into something completely different.
Wow that's a cool analogy -- its been a long time since I've looked at some of these games I am covering so its been an enjoyable journey for me also!
Perfect analogy. 🙏
Fischer is more accurate than any chess player. He remains the best
Fischer had almost zero family support and computer access, which Carlsen both received, and Fischer winning 6-0, 6-0, 6-0, 9.5-3.5 in the Candidate matches against super GMs without a single loss, not to mention winning the US championship without a loss or draw, were utterly, utterly otherworldly. Carlsen did not achieve those things, even though his accomplishments are also otherworldly. To me, Fischer is just half a notch more otherworldly, with Kasparov not far behind in otherworldliness.
id guess your elo at 1000.
these resources nowadays make it muuuch harder for anyone to dominate. so carlsen is just as otherworldly, if not more.
@@steadylearner1 Fischer lost one to Petrosian.
Fischer also won several in a row before the WC matches started. His win streak was technically 20 games, but one was a forfeit, so 19 games at worst. The gap between Fischer and the rest of the world was much bigger than Kasparov or Carlsen. However, he only was on top for a short time compared to those players.
It doesn’t makes sense to compare his resources to players of today. It does make sense to compare his resources to the players of his time. Fischer had much less at his disposal than the Russian players, who were funded and supported by the Soviet government, and often colluded to win top tournaments.
Also, the second longest win streak at top levels is 7 games (Seirawan did it twice, Caruana once).
(BTW, my ELO is 1975, looking at 2000 soon.)
Preach brother
Fischer was levels above his competition
I wish he played more world championship
Maybe these trash debate btw Magnus and Fischer would not exist
Yes, the computer absolutely changes everything, giving todays players a huge advantage when it comes to rapid improvement
I’m glad I found your channel. This is high quality content and commenting ☝🏻
Thanks! Glad to have you!
If Fischer had continued to play like this he may have lost more games but he would certainly have left more brilliancies..
He lost 61 official games only. No one could surpass him even up to the present
The Byrne brothers did not fare well against Bobby! This is arguably the Fischer game that left the greatest impression on me when first studying his games. It reminds me of a lightening fast duel between Samurai kings (started by 12. .. e5!), a flurry of flashing blades, a terrible still pause... and the white king's head falls off after 21. ... Qd7!. The final position is what is shocking: black's pieces are nowhere near the white king. In fact, they are all at or behind black's 3rd rank. What is also apparent is how distance all of white's pieces are from his kingside. Fischer was able to see that in the quadrant from e1-e4-h4-h1, he would have a queen, a rook, and two bishops at his disposal and white had nothing! It's like a SEAL team: a small, heavily armed, highly-coordinated force can defeat a much superior but unorganized force. It's the mastery of the tactics that makes it all work: destructive sacrifice to smash the white king's pawn cover, pins, attraction sacrifices, deflection sacrifices. Just a stunning game.
Wow nice analogy, thank you!
A brilliant combination by Fischer..It caught all chess experts by surprise...
Another game from that era (well, 1970 actually) that I love a lot was Larsen-Spassky, in the USSR vs. the World match. Not as stunning as this game, but gorgeous too, and unique in its way.
Calling Byrne a super GM might be a bit of streach.
The only real super GM at the time was Fisher.
... and a handful of Russians. And maybe Bent Larsen.
@@marcwordsmith
Not even the Russians should be called Super GMs and most defenetly not Bent Larsen :p
It fairly obvious that the world champions prior to Fisher was concidrably weeker then him and just about as strong as eachother.
Larsen got away with being quirky because the other GMs couldn't handle it. He would be far less sucessful with his playingstyle today.
Fisher, Karpov, Kasparov. Those where on an other level then the rest.
Including more would make every GM over 2600 an super GM.
For reference... Spassky maxed out at 2690 Fisher at 2785.
@@perkalov hmmm ... I dunno. They were all gods in my humble opinion. So this game was played in '63 or '64, and among those Russians who were still in their prime (or approaching it) at that time were Spassky, Petrosian, Botvinnik, Tal, Korchnoi, Keres, Smyslov ... I'll grant you none of them rose to Fischer's ultimate stature, or Kasparov's and maybe not Karpov's either, but I would still call them all super GMs, though I think what we're really disagreeing about here simply comes down to semantics. I concede your point that Fischer was a friggin' chess miracle like the world had never seen.
@@marcwordsmith
Sure. But to me an IM is a god :p
Most of the Russians you name was in their prime (or past it, Botvinnik was like 50 :p Smyslov and Petrosian 40ish). Fisher wasn't (He was at his peak when he quit).
I get the urge to call Botvinnik (as an example) an super GM, but it sorta makes the title pointless. It will include hundreds.
There is possibly a bit of inflation in the rating system, but its better for comparison since Magnus oponents has access to the same knowleage as Magnus and Spassky had access to the same knowleage as Fisher (possibly more, tbf. USSR tried to keep things secret). So it is relative to what their opponents streanght.
To me, it becomes rather pointless to call everyone above 2650 for a super GM.
You'd end up with calling players like Ulf Andersson and Bent Larsen for super GM even though reality they wouldn't have a resonable chance of winning against Karpov or Kasparov.
@@perkalovTal was not “considerably weaker than Fischer”
Has anyone scored Bobby's accuracy based on today's engines? We are impressed when Carlson or others are 97% accurate. And that's after they've had years to study with chess engines. It seems Fischer had near today level accuracy but with no computer for him to learn from.
This is why he's the GOAT despite his mental collapse after becoming champion. He had nothing left to prove so like Morphy, descended into madness.
Carlson has had all the advantages of close competition, chess engines and modern psychological training to keep him sane.
Those who say longevity should be a factor in claiming the crown are short selling the genius that leaves those ahead of their time broken.
I actually made a video awhile a back where I did a blunder check on sample of games of Carlsen, Fischer and Kasparov with Stockfish -- they were all pretty close in accuracy - so especially impressive for Fischer and Kasparov who didnt learn from chess engines
that stockfish guy seems to be pretty good, being compared to magnus & fischer.
Fischer at the height of his power would be better than Carlsen. If Carlsen could go back in time without a chess engine. Fischer beat three Grandmasters, in the candidates, to face Spassky for the world championship. In the candidates Fischer beat Mark Taimanov 6-0 and Bent Larsen 6-0. That had never been done before or after. Then he beat former world champion, Tigran Petrosian 6 1/2 - 2 1/2. In the finals, Fischer forfeited the second game to Spassky and still won 12 1/2 - 8 1/2. Back then all games were classical and they play 21 games. Today they will only play 14.
Thank you. Very few games in this class. Fischer's game against Byrne's brother, Lasker's first game against Pillsbury, Alekhine against Reti. Wow@
Yeah I want to do some Alekhine soon!
I'm not someone who has earned a right to an opinion, however, I beleive Fischer was the most brilliant tactician, (so far) And Carlson Is the most brilliant Strategist (so far). I think Fisher would have the advantage if they played each other several times. Magnus would definatly have the advantage against the Engine. and if you compared Magnus' moves against Fishers' moves comapred to the engine. Magnus would probably have an advantage. (somebody please do this research) I think that Bobby Fisher has an advantage over any human.
I could only appreciate the brilliancy with this kind of analysis. Thanks so much for what you do.
Your welcome , thank you!
The mere fact that the chess world still comparing Fischer to the top super grandmasters of this day, all along with their daddy “Stockfish”, expresses and confirms that Fischer is the greatest of all time.
Fischer was the best chess player of all time, no debate. Given today’s resources he would have reached a rating around 2925
Quite possible
Kasparov, the guy who held the world championship for 15 years is crying
no, absolutely not. magnus would make him find another hobby. you bobby fans just don't seem to get it, do you? magnus pummels every single player in history to ever touch the game. magnus would break bobby's spirit entirely and bobby would run into hiding to never face magnus again out of fear. magnus sees all of this stuff a mile away through the ether. he's a mystical player. he knows what his opponents are cooking before they even know. that is why he is also the greatest technical player in history. he has beaten all chess giants that he has had access to, and bobby would just be another giant that magnus would eat for a light snack
@@brainletsYT You know who disagrees with you? Magnus himself. Says Kasparov is the greatest of all time. Game recognizes game as they say. But if Fischer had grown up with online chess, his obsession would have lead to a player that Magnus would have feared. Fischer was severely disadvantaged in his day having nothing but books to study and his board, alone, for 12 hrs a day. Rarely getting to play anyone near his level. Unlike the best today, playing thousands of high quality games year after year, with the greatest opponents without ever putting on pants. And Fischer’s obsession with computer analysis would have been unmatched. Oh, wait, I said no debate.
@@brainletsYT you are low iq and low elo if you actually think all of that 😂
it is so annoing than total time wasting for waiting and waiting untill will be usefull information.
Fisher is the best of all times no matter what, everything that he created was with his own mind, not with engines.
You really can't underestimate the fact that he had no chess engines
Fischer was tremendous, then he went bat-sh!t crazy.
Yeah he kinda lost it
Why didn't Byrne move his pawn up two spaces to threaten bobby' s bishop immediately after he put it there?
if I wanted to play blues clues, I dont need Q's from you ill just paws it
What a shame it was Fischer got all anti semitic, had the fillings removed from his teeth, and turned into a recluse. Kasparov watched him play blitz with Spassky at some point and commented Fischer was playing around 2200, although Spassky didn't agree. Seems chess was his downfall in the end. 😢
Yeah Fischer got weird. Tragedy for chess.
if bobby was born the same year as magnus bobby is the chess king . if magnus was birn when bobby was bobby is the chess king.
simply Magnus = Bobby
Amazing game! And such a good commentary, making it ever possible for me to see the amazingness of it 😇 Tthank you! 🙏
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed!
Incredible game by RJF... long before today's engine analysis tools. Great analysis by Square One Chess. Fisher really knew the value of a Bishop and where to place it.
Absolutely
No life balance is the only way to achieve highest level unfortunately it comes with consequences. His life suffered in the end as a result. This is why in my books he is the best. Better than Kasparov or Carlsen.
Fischer was great for his time, just like Capablanca and Alekhine and many more greats of the game, but Kasparov and more importantly Magnus Carlsen are way out on their own in terms of all time greatest.
i am so shocked
i won't be able to sleep for the next. 3 days
Oh dear
this is also my favorite game of all time but here are some i love:
2. Kasparov immortal
3. Firouzja Zarkovic 2019
4. Rubinstein
5. Urugyayan
6. Anand
7. Polugayevsky Nezhmetdinov 1958
8. Wei Yi
9. Pearl of Wijk aan Zee
10. Liren Shanglei 2012
(11. stockfish Immortal)
1. d4 { [%eval 0.16] } 1... Nf6 { [%eval 0.17] } 2. c4 { [%eval 0.21] } 2... e6 { [%eval 0.11] } 3. Nf3 { [%eval 0.12] } 3... Bb4+ { [%eval 0.3] } 4. Nbd2 { [%eval 0.32] } 4... O-O { [%eval 0.45] } 5. a3 { [%eval 0.37] } 5... Be7 { [%eval 0.55] } 6. e4 { [%eval 0.5] } 6... d5 { [%eval 0.75] } 7. e5 { [%eval 0.57] } 7... Nfd7 { [%eval 0.58] } 8. Bd3 { [%eval 0.63] } 8... c5 { [%eval 0.62] } 9. h4 { [%eval 0.61] } 9... g6 { [%eval 0.91] } 10. O-O { [%eval 0.95] } 10... Nc6 { [%eval 0.86] } 11. Nb3 { [%eval 0.92] } 11... Bxh4 { [%eval 0.9] } 12. Bh6 { [%eval 0.98] } 12... Re8 { [%eval 0.86] } 13. Re1 { [%eval 0.89] } 13... cxd4 { [%eval 0.95] } 14. Qc2 { [%eval 0.76] } 14... dxc4 { [%eval 0.84] } 15. Bxc4 { [%eval 0.92] } 15... Nb6 { [%eval 1.03] } 16. Rad1 { [%eval 0.85] } 16... Bd7 { [%eval 0.86] } 17. Nc5 { [%eval 0.5] } 17... Rc8 { [%eval 0.4] } 18. b4 { [%eval 0.47] } 18... Nxc4?! { [%eval 1.08] } { Inaccuracy. Be7 was best. } (18... Be7) 19. Qxc4 { [%eval 0.7] } 19... Be7 { [%eval 0.85] } 20. Ne4 { [%eval 0.76] } 20... Nxb4 { [%eval 1.03] } 21. Qxb4 { [%eval 1.22] } 21... Bxb4 { [%eval 1.3] } 22. axb4 { [%eval 0.97] } 22... f5?! { [%eval 1.71] } { Inaccuracy. Kh8 was best. } (22... Kh8 23. Rxd4) 23. Nf6+ { [%eval 1.67] } 23... Kh8 { [%eval 2.06] } 24. Rxd4 { [%eval 1.74] } 24... Rc7 { [%eval 1.82] } 25. Red1 { [%eval 1.85] } 25... Re7 { [%eval 1.86] } 26. b5 { [%eval 1.72] } 26... b6 { [%eval 1.7] } 27. Kh2 { [%eval 1.71] } 27... Rb7 { [%eval 1.78] } 28. Ng5 { [%eval 1.9] } 28... Qc8 { [%eval 1.68] } 29. R1d2 { [%eval 1.68] } 29... Rc7 { [%eval 1.72] } 30. Rd6 { [%eval 1.72] } 30... Rb7 { [%eval 1.82] } 31. R2d4 { [%eval 2.41] } 31... Rc7 { [%eval 2.12] } 32. Rd1 { [%eval 2.1] } 32... Rb7 { [%eval 2.09] } 33. R6d4 { [%eval 1.7] } 33... Rc7?! { [%eval 2.37] } { Inaccuracy. Qc7 was best. } (33... Qc7 34. Rd6 Qc8 35. R1d4 Rc7 36. Rd2 Rb7 37. Rd1 Rc7 38. R6d3 Rb7 39. Kh1) 34. f4 { [%eval 2.22] } 34... Rb7? { [%eval 3.82] } { Mistake. a6 was best. } (34... a6 35. bxa6 b5 36. R1d2 Ra7 37. R2d3 Rc7 38. Rd6 Ra7 39. R3d4 Rc7 40. Rb6) 35. Nxe6 { [%eval 4.07] } 35... Rxe6 { [%eval 4.09] } (35... Bxe6) (35... Bxb5 36. Rd8+ Re8 37. Nxe8 Qxe6 38. Nf6+ Be8 39. Nxe8 Qg8 40. Nf6 Rb8 41. Rxg8+ Rxg8 42. Rd7 b5 (42... Rg7) 43. Rxh7#) 36. Nxd7 { [%eval 3.67] } 36... Kg8?! { [%eval 4.88] } { Inaccuracy. Re7 was best. } (36... Re7 37. Nf6 Rb8 38. Rd7 Rxd7 39. Rxd7 Qxd7 40. Nxd7 Rd8 41. Nf6 Rd1 42. Kg3) 37. Nf6+ { [%eval 4.93] } 37... Kf7 { [%eval 4.41] } 38. Rd8 { [%eval 4.06] } 38... Qc5?! { [%eval 5.22] } { Inaccuracy. Rb8 was best. } (38... Rb8 39. Rxc8 Rxc8 40. Rd3 Rxf6 41. exf6 Kxf6 42. Rd7 Ke6 43. Rxa7 Kd5 44. Rxh7) 39. Nxh7 { [%eval 5.23] } 39... Re8 { [%eval 5.11] } 40. e6+ { [%eval 5.0] } 40... Rxe6 { [%eval 4.85] } 41. Ng5+ { [%eval 5.2] } 41... Kf6 { [%eval 5.07] } 42. Rf8+ { [%eval 5.01] } 42... Qxf8 { [%eval 4.87] } (42... Ke7 43. Rf7+ Ke8) 43. Bxf8 { [%eval 4.91] } 43... Rc7 { [%eval 5.01] } 44. Rd4 { [%eval 5.06] } 44... Rb7 { [%eval 4.86] } 45. Kg3 { [%eval 5.03] } 45... Rc7 { [%eval 4.87] } 46. Rd3 { [%eval 4.9] } 46... Rb7 { [%eval 5.99] } 47. Kh4 { [%eval 5.84] } 47... Rc7 { [%eval 6.05] } 48. Kg3?! { [%eval 4.68] } { Inaccuracy. Nxe6 was best. } (48. Nxe6 Kxe6 49. Rd6+ Kf7 50. Rc6 Rd7 51. Bd6 Ke6 52. Be5+ Kd5 53. Kg5 Ke4) 48... Rc4 { [%eval 5.52] } 49. Rd7 { [%eval 5.49] } 49... Re3+ { [%eval 5.5] } 50. Kf2 { [%eval 5.38] } 50... Rxf4+ { [%eval 5.39] } 51. Kxe3 { [%eval 5.9] } 51... Ra4 { [%eval 6.05] } (51... Kxg5 52. Bh6+ Kxh6 53. Kxf4 g5+ 54. Kxf5 a6 55. bxa6 g4 56. a7 b5 57. a8=Q g3 58. Qa3 b4 59. Qb3 Kh5 60. Rh7#) 52. Be7+ { [%eval 5.7] } 52... Ke5 { [%eval 5.61] } 53. Kf3 { [%eval 5.56] } *
Why show this from the wrong side ie the losing side??
I used to do it the other way and got complaints , maybe I should take a poll
i have absolutely no idea, and am probably not ready to be watching your channel yet, but i would appreciate if you would expand on white's advantage where the video begins because my untrained eye sees that they are roughly equal if not a slight edge to black
Bobby was, hands down, the best Chess player in the history of the game. Magnus is a distant second.
why is this guy wearing glasses?
That's what I want to know
Byrne
Why the sunglasses? You're not in the sunlight, and if you don't want people to see you then just turn off the webcam. Seems weird to show yourself and hide at the same time.
If bobby had engines, he’d make stockfish nervous. He was studying books. BOOKS. Analysis was done on a board taking notes on paper.
Carlsen is a super genius, has incredible support from his family especially his father, utilizes huge teams of the best seconds in the world for prep, has an amazing coach in Peter Heine Nielsen, and has not come close to cracking 2900, which is still 700 elo behind stockfish. If Carlsen doesn’t make stockfish “nervous” what makes you think Fischer would? A mentally ill individual who wasn’t able to leverage the support of others during his chess career (a major disadvantage).
Bobby lost interest in chess early in his career, he even started to undermine chess with his many statements, quite possibly he would have said that engines “killed chess”, he was mentally disturbed fellow.
@@michaelreed2787 wait you think Magnus is more of a genuis than Fischer ?
Go check their IQs , Fischer was pure genuis .. the only thing Magnus has is memory advantage .. but if it's mental capabilities nah Fischer dominates Magnus
Don't even try to say that again
@@Bojack_ff Clearly you can’t read so u aren’t a genius…
Yes! a whole different world back then
Fischer in his prime was so brutal with the tactics
Absolutely!
Really good game and video ❤
Thank you!
i wish bobby could have played stockfish
That would have been extremely interesting and he would have lost
@@squareonechess6939 think of how good bobby could have been if he had engines to learn from, and experement
Evil language, blasphemy, profanity.
Thanks!!!!!!!
Welcome!
Why does the opening explorer call this a KID? It looks like a fairly standard Grunfeld to me.
Good point ... while the 1st two moves are technically KID, it only remains that way if d6 is played, so after d5 it becomes a Grunfeld.
Bobby Fisher is definitely the best of all times.
To much talking
Boring vedeo
can we lose the vocal fry please
He keeps saying 321 is so cringe
Why are you wearing sunglasses?
I honestly believe If Magnus and Garry were born in the same year as Bobby, they would have ended up being rated below him.
I wouldn't be so sure -- I think they all would have been close, but its hard to say -- I analyazed their middle games at one point and they all made pretty close to the same amount of blunders -- I made a video on it a long time ago.
@@squareonechess6939 Magnus wouldn't have had the luxury of learning from super high level chess engines if he grew up playing chess in the 1950s and 1960s. I think Bobby's natural ability and creativity would have been a little too much for Magnus.
I know it's impossible to know for sure. Just my opinion.
Bla bla bla
Boring vedeo
You lost me at 'Robert Byrne who is what we would call today a super grandmaster'. No sir, his peak rating was 2605. Do you at all realize that today Robert Byrne wouldn't even be in the FIDE top 100? It's ok to admire Fischer. But ffs, be reasonable about it.
He was ranked 12th best in the world at his peak ... when you factor in rating inflation, it seems safe to say he was a super GM of his time
Spasskys peak rating was only 2690, would his performance and ranking in his time be comparable to what we call Super GM today?
@@squareonechess6939
It's not an official title, but the standard is 2700+, so no.
@@squareonechess6939
Paul Morphy was ranked number one at his peak. That doesn't mean he was close to anyone in the top 20 today.
This is not rating inflation. Today's players are actually (a lot) stronger.
Very impressive
Thank you!
Ty
Your welcome!
Nice vid 👍
Thanks!
Just recently found the channel. It seems like good analysis but I'm still struggling with how to make analysis useful for informing my gameplay. BTW If I hada channel, I'd need to wear sunglasses too.
Don't think about the game as a whole, think about each move being a new game that you have to solve. Watch Fischer's tactics and thought-process. Learn Chess logic and reasoning from his moves.
Thanks! Yeah so many variations calculated behind the scenes that there's no time to cover them all -- so sometimes it ends up looking simpler than it really is!
...e5 is very easy to find. White's setup with e3 and Nge2 is weak. ...Nxf2 is even easier.
At 18:31 What's wrong with white moves knight at d4 to e2?
... Qh3+ 0-1
@@guidodenbroeder935 Yeah white king moves to e1 and then what does black do?
@@MrDavePed Play chess?
@@MrDavePedMaybe Bf3.
@@comic4relief maybe white responds with rook at d1 to c1? It's probably a lost cause ty