Why did Fischer prefer 7.Bb3 over 7.a3 or 7.a4 or 7.0-0 ?

ChessGuy140

Why did Fischer prefer 7. Bb3 over a move like 7. a3, allowing the bishop to retreat to a2? Does this really waste too much time? 

punter99

He wrote a bit about it in his book

 

 

blueemu

Also, all three of those moves (7. a3, 7. a4 and 7. 0-0) rule out the Velimirovic Attack, which involves castling Q-side.

ChessGuy140
blueemu wrote:

Also, all three of those moves (7. a3, 7. a4 and 7. 0-0) rule out the Velimirovic Attack, which involves castling Q-side.

 

Doesn't Bb3 fall victim to a Nbd7 line that is arguably better for black? For example, in Logozar's 1.e4 course, he gives this line, where white is down a pawn and needs to prove a draw.

 

 

blueemu
ChessGuy140 wrote:

Doesn't Bb3 fall victim to a Nbd7 line that is arguably better for black? For example, in Logozar's 1.e4 course, he gives this line, where white is down a pawn and needs to prove a draw.

Since 7. ... Nbd7 rules out the possibility of Nc6, I would consider answering it with Qe2 heading into what might be a favorable variation of the Velimirovic Attack. Black will end up with his Knights on c5 and d7 (instead of c6 and d7, as is usual in the Velimirovic) but White will be a tempo up (since Black has taken two moves instead of one to post his QN). In opposite-side castling positions, that extra tempo might be very useful.

blueemu

Here is the general sort of thing I'm talking about:

 

blueemu

Having said all that... I prefer to play Black in the Fischer-Sozin. As you could probably tell from my "Kids, don't try this at home!" game.

Optimissed

I know the answer because I was around at the time. It was to avoid 7. ...Nxe4 and retain white's flexibility rather than allow simplification and a damaged centre.

blueemu
Optimissed wrote:

I know the answer because I was around at the time. It was to avoid 7. ...Nxe4 and retain white's flexibility rather than allow simplification and a damaged centre.

7. Qe2 also avoids the Fork trick, but it's less popular than Bb3.

Optimissed

Less flexible too, although at one time, I seem to recall that Fischer played a Spanish line with Qe2. Think it was Fischer.


But the B might easily go to b3 and c2 so why not?

melvinbluestone

    Fischer played the black side of this line against Icelandic GM Fredrik Olafsson at the 1959 Candidates Tournament in Belgrade. In my book of Fischer's games, British master John Hall says of white's 7.a3 : "Waste of time. 7.Bb3 is best". Curiously, Fischer goes on to lose the game, but maybe not because of his reply to a3. His exchange sac, 15...Rxc3 is probably more to blame........

 

Optimissed
blueemu wrote:
ChessGuy140 wrote:

Doesn't Bb3 fall victim to a Nbd7 line that is arguably better for black? For example, in Logozar's 1.e4 course, he gives this line, where white is down a pawn and needs to prove a draw.

Since 7. ... Nbd7 rules out the possibility of Nc6, I would consider answering it with Qe2 heading into what might be a favorable variation of the Velimirovic Attack. Black will end up with his Knights on c5 and d7 (instead of c6 and d7, as is usual in the Velimirovic) but White will be a tempo up (since Black has taken two moves instead of one to post his QN). In opposite-side castling positions, that extra tempo might be very useful.

It's a draw though, isn't it?

Smositional_Player

Fischer was known for being very opinionated in the opening. If you're looking through the games of his book "60 Memorable Games" you can see that he has some strong opinions on certain opening variations. Many masters wouldn't agree with him at all nowadays, but whether his opinions on certain openings are wrong or not, isn't what makes his book so great. It's the analysis of the games, his thoughts that make this book so great. That can also be said about many classic books or analysis by former world champions like Lasker, Alekhine etc. What the old masters said about the openings changed during chess history, but this doesn't detract the brilliance in their play.

blueemu

One of the American titled players... Fine? Mednis?... played 7. a3 against Fischer and lost quickly. When he asked where he had gone wrong in the opening, Fischer replied "The whole line is worthless."

Opinionated? You make the call!

blueemu
Optimissed wrote:
blueemu wrote:
ChessGuy140 wrote:

Doesn't Bb3 fall victim to a Nbd7 line that is arguably better for black? For example, in Logozar's 1.e4 course, he gives this line, where white is down a pawn and needs to prove a draw.

Since 7. ... Nbd7 rules out the possibility of Nc6, I would consider answering it with Qe2 heading into what might be a favorable variation of the Velimirovic Attack. Black will end up with his Knights on c5 and d7 (instead of c6 and d7, as is usual in the Velimirovic) but White will be a tempo up (since Black has taken two moves instead of one to post his QN). In opposite-side castling positions, that extra tempo might be very useful.

It's a draw though, isn't it?

The entire Velimirovic? Or just the line with Black's QN on c6?

In any case, at our level the official theoretical assessment of a line has little bearing on the outcome of the game.

melvinbluestone

   In the same tournament, Yugoslavia 1959, Fischer played the white side of this line twice against Tal, and lost both games. In one, Tal played 7...Be7, and in the other he played 7...b5. After the second loss, Fischer is reputed to have said "Cripes! Phooey! What a revolting development!".

pfren
ChessGuy140 έγραψε:
blueemu wrote:

Also, all three of those moves (7. a3, 7. a4 and 7. 0-0) rule out the Velimirovic Attack, which involves castling Q-side.

 

Doesn't Bb3 fall victim to a Nbd7 line that is arguably better for black? For example, in Logozar's 1.e4 course, he gives this line, where white is down a pawn and needs to prove a draw.

 

So, a course comes and drops at your head a few long lines, and in the end it claims "Black is better".

What you have learned from that? Absolutel;y nothing.

Just set the position, and try to play it OTB against a human opponent. See how easy, or tough it is to deal with the intricacies of the position.

It seems that you fell victim to a database dump which just gives a numerical computer evaluation, without explaining much about what is happening. The positions after 7.Bb3 Nbd7 are quite complex and sharp, and at least for my taste the attacking side always has the upper hand PRACTICALLY.

The following game was played at a tournament I was participating between two promising Indian youngsters. After the natural 12...Qc7 (which is more or less approved by the computer) white has won every single game that has been played so far, and possible improvements (like 12...Bd7 which is a computers first choice) do not give Black an easy game either.

Computers evaluate white's queen sacrifice as approximately equal, or slightly better for Black, but in practice Black's position is extremely tough to defend, and he collapsed at some point.

 

 
 
 

 

Optimissed
blueemu wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
blueemu wrote:
ChessGuy140 wrote:

Doesn't Bb3 fall victim to a Nbd7 line that is arguably better for black? For example, in Logozar's 1.e4 course, he gives this line, where white is down a pawn and needs to prove a draw.

Since 7. ... Nbd7 rules out the possibility of Nc6, I would consider answering it with Qe2 heading into what might be a favorable variation of the Velimirovic Attack. Black will end up with his Knights on c5 and d7 (instead of c6 and d7, as is usual in the Velimirovic) but White will be a tempo up (since Black has taken two moves instead of one to post his QN). In opposite-side castling positions, that extra tempo might be very useful.

It's a draw though, isn't it?

The entire Velimirovic? Or just the line with Black's QN on c6?

In any case, at our level the official theoretical assessment of a line has little bearing on the outcome of the game.

The final position in the line shown, white a pawn down. Why play stuff like that as white?

Optimissed

When people "at our level" are playing well, they're capable of playing such endings perfectly, but maybe it's a rare event.

 

blueemu

Which line shown? Post #4? My suggestion was to play a Velimirovic Attack, which has nothing to do with the f2-f4-f5 plan used in post #4.

This sort of thing: