Bobby Fischer Destroys Spassky w. His Most DISRESPECTFUL Opening Ever!

[@michaelkutrowski3915]

Best explanations out of all videos on chess. Great wording and description of the board. Keep the games coming with potential moves and what ideas either player has in mind, along with what the engine says throughout the game. Always look forward to new videos. Daily/ weekly videos preferred.

[@davidmartin7163]

I like how in your videos you discuss the meaning behind the moves, state what the engine likes/dislikes, and how you go down multiple lines. Also your historical knowledge on chess games is impressive

[@squareonechess6939]

Thank you -- glad you're enjoying!

[@neilcowan535]

Great anatysis, my head was spinning at times but extremely thorough and very ingteresting. Thankyou.

[@paulduvernet4012]

Very cool that you often show ideas with arrows, rather than by moving pieces. More like actual calculation.

[@squareonechess6939]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@lysidplontger3980]

Fischer never played queens gambit declined in his entire career. With the white pieces, he'd play e4 every single time. With the black peices, he'd play kings indian or sicilian. Against spasky, he played queens gambit declined with both white and black, though never debassing himself to playing d4 on the first move. Opting instead for c4. Thus, one might say that out of spite he never opened with d4 in his entire career. Also telling about fischer. He believed e4 was the objectively best way to play. He believed c5 was what gave black the most counterplay. He stuck by those beliefs his entire career, only playing different lines to throw off spasky. How many other chess players in the world can say they refused to play a certain opening for their entire career, only using it to throw off their opponent in a world chess championship match?

[@RaineriHakkarainen]

Alpha Zero loves 1:Knight f3! 2:c4! Fischer was wrong 1:e4!??

[@philcolbert7864]

Not true. First of all you can't play it as white since it is a DEFENSE. Spassky is the one who played it. Second, Fischer HAD played the defense a few times as black, namely the Ragosin variation. He also played b3 and c4 opening moves a couple of times in the 1970 Interzonal

[@Larry-t5g]

not every single time. Bobby in the past had played 1.Nf3, 1. c4, and 1. b3.

[@alpetrocelli4465]

Barry Oakley is one of the most underrated bassists of the era. His rhythm with Jaimo & Butch on drums, drove those jams. ✌️❤️🎶

[@squareonechess6939]

As completely irrelevant to anything in this video as that comment is, you nevertheless have me wanting to go check out that bassist now lol

[@alpetrocelli4465]

@@squareonechess6939 Missed the post I wanted by one, but definitely check them out!😊

[@kellyjay7448]

His name was spelled Berry. Actually, his full name was Raymond Berry Oakley, he went by "Berry."

[@philcolbert7864]

Alekhine's Defense may not be the best, but it's a hell of a lot better than the Nadjorf 'poisoned pawn' that Fischer inexplicably liked and which Spassky crushed him in a previous game

[@NieLar642]

ime now addicted to see your channel...shame on you for bring me in LOL 😊😊

[@craftycurate]

Really enjoying your videos … concise and fascinating to listen to … keep up the good work!

[@stephenstruk1734]

WORST Train Wreck and Chess Game I have ever SEEN!!!!!!

[@Nicholas_Buck]

By way of comparison, Spassky was an utter gentleman, even joining the audience in the standing ovation given to Fischer after the masterpiece that Fischer played in game six.

[@wormhole331]

Also when Fischer was on the run from the U.S. government for the Yugoslavia controversy Spassky wrote to the U.S. president Bush trying to de-escalate the situation. What an outstanding guy.

[@gilbertkohl6991]

Alexander Morozevich is interesting. He dropped chess in favor of Go. Sorta like Bobby creating Fischerandom or Chess960. Bobby was the Man. Thanks for the channel. Subscribed.

[@georgeritmeester4736]

Fantastic commentary, as per usual! One of the things I'm learning from your commentaries is that Yusupov was right when he said that being good at selecting candidate moves is more important than how good you are at calculating. I'm wondering how long it takes you to prepare your commentary for a game.

[@Luckey900]

Thanks Jim Canada

[@treborasoral3761]

Here Fisher looks at the board, blinks his eyes once or twice, farts undetected. He then taps his left foot three times as Spassky scratches his right temple with his ring finger contemplating what he’s going to have for breakfast tomorrow ….

[@xpump876]

Interesting they put a continuance for the next day with a consortium of Russians working out the end game while Bobby pulling and all-nighter on his own. Glad to see Bobby reigned! Chess engines have changed the game in such a radical nature that the above occurrence is now just archaic.

[@jozefserf2024]

Chess engines also made adjournments extinct.

[@swamyvigyananand4779]

Never seen so many missed opportunities / blunders by Fisher explained as in this game....

[@bradbell3744]

Very good presentation.

[@GiorgioLombardi-lm5je]

A fascinating game... Is the Alehkine opening really that bad? Maybe it's not the best but if Fischer had not played it we would not have such an interesting game to watch... I play the Alehkine opening most of the time at my club and I've noticed that it leads to wide open / exciting games

[@mwatkins0590]

alehkine is really not a bad opening at all if you are comfortable with hypermodern style games, but if you are looking to draw the petrovs defense will be better, and if you are looking to take the win, the sicilian or caro kan will be better.

[@jozefserf2024]

24:15 Remarkable!

[@richardgraham7055]

I love this episode for the beauty of the play, the elegance and vision.

[@stevienugnugent9986]

A masterpiece by Fisher

[@peterhaslund]

Why didn't I ever notice this game before in my entire stupid chess life? Thank you. Sorry Spassky played this opening badly, and was lost when the a pawn fell, but wow-kay this is Magnus style so opening mess before superior play takes control of the game, pressing endlessly for a win. In modern times against bots, Fischer against the World (of USSR)

[@3DTRADER]

An excellent presentation and analysis of this game. However, your title, which insinuates that Fischer crushed Spassky, is totally off!

[@t-love8351]

jesus christ, the clickbait title is cringe. robson fischer was a sadster who only destroyed himself, and the world was better off.

[@northshores7319]

At the 7 minute mark you use way too many arrows when, in this critical position it would be better as a commontator, you just take the time to move the pieces just like people would do if they were analyizing the game on a real board. Moving arrows does us no benefit when there are so many of them. If you take the time to make a excellent product then you will get more people liking your channel.

[@rafikhanwa8001]

Is it that sunny buddy?

[@Therulerof72]

Sweet

[@georgeritmeester4736]

Which cartoons would you recommend?

[@robonini1]

To many comments

[@ryanpeplinski1884]

I think your videos would be better if you play through the game without commentary. Then go back and analyze it.

[@Alekhine01]

Well, surely this is not a game that you have never seen before?

[@tariqsami5695]

Please don't spoil the game. Keep it brief.

[@zahimiibrahim3602]

In what way does a full analysis spoil the game? If you don't like it you can fast forward or look for channels that show moves with zero analysis.

[@tariqsami5695]

Oh my God he is spoiling the game. Stop your commentary, I am out.

[@treborasoral3761]

I can’t, I just can’t sit through so much commentary, especially with the sunglasses. Please, just show the moves until it gets to the most important part then you can ramble for a while.

[@peterdieleman303]

No

[@MgtowFreightTrain]

Too much commentary. Can't enjoy the actual game

[@nct948]

You can switch the sound off.

[@MgtowFreightTrain]

@@nct948 he is explaining possibilities with the video also... If he didn't put you to sleep you would know that

[@nct948]

@@MgtowFreightTrain why are you saying that to me?

[@kostailijev7489]

Even as a chess master, I found this game, and video, dull and boring!

[@stevelangridge1755]

Not so impressed, especially given the dozen or so times you must have referred to one or other player making suboptimal moves or outright mistakes!

[@nickchatzipantelis4109]

You just gave away your chess rating.

[@stevelangridge1755]

@@nickchatzipantelis4109 Undoubtedly true, if rather ungenerous of you. But not relevant. The game was very interesting and the ending in particular was played brilliantly by Fischer. And I do generally like the analysis provided by this channel and its author a lot. However I do stand by my original comment. I just can’t see this as a masterpiece, even if Botvinnik says so, when the analysis pointed out so many mistakes and inaccuracies.

[@nickchatzipantelis4109]

@@stevelangridge1755 Yes and I stand by what I said. And it is very relevant if you truly understand what I said. Or rather truly understand chess. Not all 'computer' moves are same degree of difficulty to find in a match. Some positions are more 'complicated' than others. Ask someone around you who understands chess to teach you. Ignorance is bliss buddy.

[@stevelangridge1755]

@@nickchatzipantelis4109 You can make as many assumptions about my chess expertise as I can to assess your general ability to understand the point being made (clue: very low!). So I’ll spell it out for you because that seems necessary for you to understand. Why point out all the supposedly suboptimal moves, if indeed they are simply not applicable in human chess? We’re agreed that the game is fascinating. But the analysis detracts from its masterpiece status, rather than demonstrating and reinforcing it. I do hope you understand. If not, best of luck (buddy).

[@mwatkins0590]

@@stevelangridge1755 the thing is teh chess computer is not always right, thats why sometimes chess computers can beat eachother. furthermore you have to think - the most optimal move might be a super unintuitive gambit or sacrifice which requires you to play 30 counterintuitive, perfect moves in a row and if you miss a single one you lose whereas a move that is suboptimal but more intuitive, where your chances of still coming out ahead if you make another slightly less than perfect move are much higher, is ultimately a better move when neither side has a computer to help them. a single good computer move which might be the best move might still be much harder for a human to win with than a suboptimal move that is intuitive.

[@begginir]

non commentare sei fuori come i gerani