|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Fischer World Champion! Reviewed By Prof. Nagesh Havanur
Although authorship is also credited to Dr.Max Euwe, the late World Champion, his writing is confined to the account of the complex negotiations before the match. In retrospect it makes ironic reading as Dr. Euwe, the then FIDE President, has had to perform the unpleasant duty of divesting Fischer of his title and bestowing it on Karpov in 1975 when the official chess organization refused to accept the American’s demands. Today opinion is divided on the Fischer-Spassky Match 1972. The historic encounter did bring a temporary reprieve from the Soviet domination of World Championship. Sadly enough, it also turned out to be the swansong of one of the greatest players in chess history. As for this book, it deserves to be read for Timman’s work alone. Apart from his own independent analysis, he also offers a judicious comparison between the commentaries of experts like Smyslov, Reshevsky, Byrne, Nei and Olafsson. A case in point is the following game: Fischer-Spassky World Championship Match 1972 Game 4 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 Fischer's patent move in Sicilian. 6...e6 7.Bb3 Be7 8.Be3 0-0 9.0-0 The main alternative is 9.Qe2 followed by 0-0-0. After his loss to Larsen at the 1970 Interzonal Fischer gave it up. 9...a6 10.f4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5 12.a3 This move was apparently played because Fischer wanted to prepare his favorite advance f4-f5. But more promising is 12.e5 dxe5 13.fxe5 Nd7 14.Ne4 Bb7 15.Nd6 Bxd6 16.exd6 Qxg5. After 17.Qe2 or 17.Rf2 a dynamic balance is reached. 12...Bb7 13.Qd3 a5!
Undoubtedly the result of home preparation. Now White no longer has the time to advance the f-pawn. So Fischer decides to push his e-pawn. 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxe5 Nd7 16.Nxb5 Accepting the challenge. Fischer has always had healthy respect for material and took pawns whenever necessary. But not 16.Qxb5? Ba6. 16...Nc5 17.Bxc5 17.Qe2 loses to 17...Nxb3 18.cxb3 Ba6 19.Rad1 Qd5 20.a4 Qxb3. But Olafsson's suggestion 17.Qe3! keeps White's feet firmly on the ground. After 17..Nxb3 18.Qxb3 a4 19.Qd3 White is O.K. 17...Bxc5+ 18.Kh1 Qg5 19.Qe2 Underestimating the dangers of his position. He should have gone for an ending with 19.Qg3 Qxg3 20.hxg3. 19...Rad8! Timman explains that Spassky's assessment of this position is based on the following considerations. Firstly: White will be forced to move his rook from the f-file in view of the threat 20...Rd2. So his pressure against f7 will be reduced. Secondly: the b7 bishop has the square a8 available in reply to a possible Nb5-d6. Thirdly: the d- file which White obtains is of only secondary importance, as the struggle will mainly take place on the king's side. 20.Rad1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 h5 21...Be3 with the dual threats of 22...Qxe5 and 22...Bf4 may be better, e.g. 22.Nd6 Bc6 23.Rf1 Bf4 24.Qf2 Qg4! (Olafsson) with the threat of …Qh3. The advantage of 21…Be3 is also that it can prepare …h5 advance with greater effect.
22.Nd6? A move with a dual purpose. In some lines White can sacrifice on f7 and otherwise the knight can return to the defense via e4. Yet this move is wrong as the stronghold of the knight on d6 can become shaky. It is more important to block the path of the bishops. 22.Nd4! (Reshevsky) is right. After 22…h4 23.Nf3 Qf4 24.h3 White can defend the position according to Timman. 22…Ba8 23.Bc4 A strong defensive move protecting the queen on e2 and bringing the bishop back into the game. Not 23.Rf1? h4 24.Nxf7 h3! 25.Nxg5 hxg2+ and mate on the next move. 23…h4 24.h3 Superficial play by Fischer according to Timman. Of course, 24.Rd3 loses to 24..Bg2+ 25.Qxg2 Qc1+. But White has 24.Ne4 Qxe5 25.Nxc5 Qxc5 26.h3. Here Timman finds the subtle 26…Qf5! 27.Kg1 Rc8 White is faced with the threat of ...Qc5 +. After 28 .Bb3 Bc4 or 28.Bd3 Qg5, Black can follow up with the advance of e-pawn (with the White bishop no longer on a2-g8 diagonal, the f7 pawn is no longer weak). Then he will be in a in a position to control matters. 24…Be3! Threatening 25… Bf4 and 25… Qg3. 25.Qg4 Qxe5
26.Qxh4 The tempting 26.Nxf7 loses to 26…Kxf7 27.Bxe6+ Kf6! 28.Rf1+ Ke7. White has nothing for the piece. 26…g5! Vacating a square for the king with a tempo so that the rook reaches the semi-open h-file for attack. The other side of the coin is that the position of the king has been weakened. In this context Olafsson’s recommendation 26…Qxb2 is also strong. Now 27.Nxf7 is met by 27…Bxg2+! 28.Kh2 Qxc2 29.Qh8+ Kxf7 30.Rd7+ Ke8 31.Rd8+ Kxe8 32.Qxf8+ Kc7. The king successfully escapes to the queen’s side and Black wins. So White has to play 27.Bb3 maintaining the threat of 28. Nxf7 and also vacating the square for the knight if necessary. However, Black has regained the pawn and with 27… g5 he can keep positional advantage. 27.Qg4 Bc5! 28.Nb5? It is only now that White is completely lost. He had to play 28.b4! axb4 (the point being that 28..Bxd6 29.Rxd6 Qxd6 30.Qxg5 + leads to perpetual check.) 29.axb4 Bxb4 30.Be2. Now White can place his knight on c4 and the bishop on f3 neutralizing the position. As Black is left with pawns on only one wing, his winning chances are reduced. 28…Kg7 Threatening the decisive …Rf8-h8-h4. 29.Nd4 Now not 29.Bd6 when white draws with 31.Nf5+.
29…Rh8! This move was roundly criticized and instead 29…Rd8 was suggested by commentators. However, Timman’s analysis suggests that that there is no reason to fault Spassky’s continuation. 30.Nf3 Bxf3 31.Qxf3 Bd6?Overlooking White’s next move in time trouble. It is only now that Black misses the last chance to win with 31…Rh4! The following variation given by Timman indicates the dangers for White. 32.Rf1 Rf4 33.Qe2 Rxf1+ 34.Qxf1 Bd6 35.Kg1 Qh2+ 36.Kf2 Bc5+ 37. Ke1 Qe5+ 38.Qe2 Qxb2 39.a4? Qc1+ 40.Qd1 Bf2+ 41.Ke2 Qe3+ 42.Kf1 Bg3 43.Qe2 Qc1+ and mate.32.Qc3! After this move Black’s attack fizzles out.32…Qxc3 33.bxc3 Be5 34.Rd7 Kf6 35.Kg1 Bxc3 36.Be2 Be5 37.Kf1 Rc8 38.Bh5 Rc7 39.Rxc7 Bxc7 40.a4 Ke7 41.Ke2 f5 42. Kd3 Be5 43.c4 Kd6 44.Bf7 Bg3 45.c5 + drawnThis exciting encounter belies Timman’s curious claim in the Introduction that the first nine games are totally devoid of the whole idea of fighting chess. Perhaps he was thinking of Spasssky’s poor form in other games. As for the openings they have a certain period flavor. Yet there is a lot to learn from Fischer’s masterly handling of openings like the Modern Benoni, Nimzo-Indian and Queen’s Gambit Declined. It is also instructive to see why certain lines of these openings have gone out of circulation today.A case in point is Timman’s analysis of the opening of the 6th game: 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6? 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.0-0 Ra7? 16...Qa7, Larsen’s suggestion, may be a little better. 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4!
White went on to score a classic victory. In the book Timman analyses Geller’s original recommendation 14…Qb7 threatening 15..c4. After 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.Rxc5 Rxc5 17.Qxc5 a6 18.Bd3 Qxb2 19.0-0! [19..Qxa2? 20.Nd4 ] Nd7 20.Qc6 Rb8 21.Nd4 Qb6 22.Rc1 White has persistent pressure. A year after the publication of this book Geller came up with an improvement against Timman himself in Hilversum 1973. After 17.Qxc5 there followed 17… Na6! 18.Bxa6 (18.Qc6 Qxc6 19.Bxc6 Rb8 20.b3 Rc8) 18...Qxa6 19.Qa3 Qc4 20.Kd2 (20.Qc3 Rb8) 20...Qg4 21.Rg1 d4! 22.Nxd4 (22.exd4 Rb8) 22...Qh4 23.Re1 Qxf2+ 24.Re2 Qf1 25.Nxe6 fxe6 26.Qd6 Kh8 27.e4 Rc8 28.Ke3 Rf8 29.Rd2 e5 !30.Qxe5 Qe1+ 31.Re2 Qg1+ 32.Kd2 Rd8+ 33.Kc3 Qd1 34.Qb5 Qd4+ 35.Kc2 a6 36.Qxa6 Qc5+ 0-1 In his work Application Of Chess Theory Geller mentions that he had analyzed the whole line including his improvement with 14…Qb7 with Spassky before the Match. Unfortunately, the World Champion failed to follow it up in this game. There is no better example than this revelation by Geller to understand the reasons for Spassky’s failure in the Match. Both the World Champion and Geller were known to be the connoisseurs of the above variation of the Queen’s Gambit Declined. When Fischer, a king’s pawn player, opened with 1.c4, it must have come as a surprise to Spassky. He seems to have played the whole game in a daze and lost. The lack of focused preparation in his own opening is a telling comment on Spassky’s state of mind before the Match. In this book young Timman attributes Spassky’s failure in the Match to Fischer’s hypnotic powers, or more accurately, the strong psychological pressure exerted by the American. The 2- point handicap which Fischer offered Spassky at the beginning of the Match seems to have undermined the World Champion’s confidence. Incidentally, there are quite a few new insights into several endings of the Match. It is common knowledge that Fischer blundered away his bishop in the first game and lost. This book shows how Fischer could have saved the ending with a king march while remaining a piece down. Similarly it also shows how Spassky could have lost the ending even if he had not blundered with the sealed move in the last game. All in all, Timman’s work is an important contribution to
the genre of World Championship books.
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
The
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
