"Chess is hard." Exchange sacs are awesome, the thing to look for if you're a B player and want to improve. My lone victory against a master hinged on an exchange sac on e4. It was G/60, my regret is that no scorecard was required so the game is now forever lost in the aether; stuck on the surface of a distant black hole.
Petrosian is my favorite master to watch and, learn. His method is fundamentally sound. He stuck to the basics, logic. He was the master of taking what he was given, hisnopening and midgame was simple enough to alter as needed. Petrosian was not presumptive, he secured his position, nullified the opponents offense and undermined the opponents position. Petrosian had the best games to study for someone beginning chess.
Despite the gentle ribbing of Doug Eckhert, he has written what was (when written and may still be) the best, and now probably well out of print, book on the Keres attack
@10:30 why take back the f pawn with the g pawn and not the Bishop? Is it just that the pawn prevents either knight from going to e4? gxf5 breaks kingside pawn structure and locks in the Bishop, seems counterintuitive to me (then again I'm lowly rated)
Nobody ever had a harder road to the World Championship Match than Spassky as he had to beat really good players in matches on his way to the top in 66 and 69. If we had that system in play today I think it would really be a show of just how strong Magnus is. Spassky was really stronger than Fischer in the 60's. If Fischer would have been able to face the type of players Spassky had to play on a yearly basis he would have matured sooner. He might of thought of living in the Soviet Union just to get the playing experience. He did visit there when he was a teen but was rude and was told to leave. Besides the Cold War really was an highly antagonistic era for even Chess players. Rueben Fine did not play in the 1948 Match to determine Alekhine's successor because he said he did not want to waste three months of his life watching the Russsians throwing games to each other.
Fischer claimed people were cheating whenever he suffered a setback. The most ridiculous example was in his game with Botvinnik. He was probably winning, and blew the advantage. After Fischer's blunder, Botvinnik walked up to his team captain, Abramov, and said something. Fischer then claimed that Botvinnik was getting illegal assistance. According to Eliot Hearst, the very idea that Botvinnik would even listen to advice from a player so inferior to himself was patently absurd, and no protest was filed. Botvinnik's version of the story is that he walked up to Abramov, and said one word: "Draw", which is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect a player to say to his Team Captain at that point. The captain needs to know how every game is going, to be able to tell others whether to play for a win or a draw. But I don't think Fischer claimed anyone was cheating in this cycle. There was no need to, as he had no setbacks that needed explaining away.
petrosian boring? all games of his that i see on the internet he sacs stuff, smothers his oponent in glorious styl and has positions thatone drools to when seeing them XD boring is more like Karpov or even worse Carlsen, when the guy does absolutely nothing the whole game and wins a pawn in the endgame XD Petrosian was no boring :D
Ha ha ha ha ha I must laugh my ass off by the thought, that there was a chessplayer named Pachman, after the great cheese-eating hero from the modern PC-game.... ;) It´s so funny....
Pawn Sacrifice was a pretty good movie. Not the best movie ever, but far from the worst. How often do we get chess movies anyway? We should be grateful.
I have to disagree. It was filled with more inaccuracies than a game between two D players at a Sunday rapid. I could argue that a movie like _Pawn Sacrifice_ is why we _don't_ have more chess movies.
When you said most "shocking" move: rook takes f4. Then, Qg5+ and queen picks up rook back. At that moment, Rg4 picks up black's queen. So, SLAP HIM!!!
