Bobby Fischer Brilliancy Confuses Commentators! 

I'm pretty sure that's not what was said. When one uses quotation marks, it is important to put what was written or said between them.

@@david_cop_a_feel7538you are correct, i made a typo 5:24

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.

😂 legendary

"You're all followers."

Nice anecdote!

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.

...and the game even features an octopus knight! B-)

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.

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.

I disagree, refusing to resign in a lost position is annoying to the player winning and just means he will have less time to get ready for the next round.

@@schizoidman7916 Lets make an analogy to other sports. I used to watch NBA, and i can just imagine a team saying in the fourth quarter "we lost, we are going home". That is incredibly disrespectful to everybody watching. I agree that if you are playing with your friends for fun, that you can resign if they ate ok with it. And i must confess that there were a couple of "real" chess games that i have played and got upset enough by my blunder to have just quit.

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.

the engine says that after Kf2 you go Qc8 so you can go Qh3, which can't be stopped by white apparently after Qh3 white has to give up material to avoid getting checkmated

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.

Thank you for your kind comment :) I dont have any plans to stop posting

@@skydust1269 No doubt.

Moving the wrong rook?

It is amazing how you are embarrassing yourself with luck of knowledge about geography.

@@mihaimihai5801 What are you embarrassing yourself about?

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

Yes

thanks for the feedback! in my video for next week i've done something that should help with this. appreciate the comment :)

Haha I made it in ms paint

@@oithornley woah Pretty good for something made in ms paint I guess

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.

Takes imagination to play 1.h4 d5 2. ra3 and then win despite ... bxr.

arent all grandmasters just machine players these days?

I suggest you google it before you comment and embarrass yourself, Mr Phelps. The person "trying to be clever" here is you, and you have failed ;)

A 'brilliancy' refers to a surprising or unexpected move, such as a sacrifice, which wins a game. In this game it was NxB (instead of rook).