He wrote a bit about it in his book
Why did Fischer prefer 7.Bb3 over 7.a3 or 7.a4 or 7.0-0 ?
Sort:
Sep 11, 2020
0
#3
Also, all three of those moves (7. a3, 7. a4 and 7. 0-0) rule out the Velimirovic Attack, which involves castling Q-side.
Sep 11, 2020
0
#4
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.
Sep 11, 2020
0
#5
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.
Sep 11, 2020
0
#7
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.
Sep 11, 2020
0
#8
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.
Sep 13, 2020
0
#9
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.
Sep 13, 2020
0
#10
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!
Sep 13, 2020
0
#11
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.
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?