Killegar Chess presents: Arinbjorn Gudmundsson Vs. Bobby Fischer, 1960 - part 2

[mukmin01]

1:38



[SeanGGodley]

Ha! Yes, maybe his brain should have been frozen! His ability to see ahead was really incredible even before he was a teenager; apparently he inherited it from his likely biological father Paul Nemenyi, who was a spatial-relations genius scientist. His mother was very talented too - speaking many languages fluently. So Bobby had all the right imput, combined with an absolute obsession with the game and a burning desire to win - no wonder he was s great! Your english was just fine my friend =0)

[nagoya4]

good video. did u see carlsen playing the dragon again in the last round of london? ;)

[SeanGGodley]

Yes indeed I did! I thought you might comment =0) I was surprised I have to say; I thought Kasparov would have trained him otherwise. But Magnus is an expert of course and he has been playing the Dragon for many years so he can get away with it. But I would really be surprised if it became a regular thing again, we'll see!

All the best,

Sean

[nagoya4]

didn't go too well though, i don't have many expectations (as an amateur dragon fan)

[TheDoubleEscape]

You know, I love Fischer's play. But I can't seem to separate his play from his anti-semitic remarks. I know it's horrible, and that I should enjoy his precision, but there's something so off putting about praising someone who held such terrible views.

[SeanGGodley]

Hiya, yes I know what you mean. There is some consolation in the fact that all of his official chess playing was completed long before his anti-semitism took shape. So in a sense the two aren't related. Also, in his later life, he was bordering on delusional; and his hatred towards jews was part of this "madness" and can as such be seen as separate from the person - who was a person, incidentally, much warmer and more humourous than is commonly thought - although certainly intense and stubborn!

[Liguzh]

why is the bishop pair better than a knight pair???

[archmagi14794]

In the endgame the board is very open and so having a piece that can strike across the board can be more useful than one that cannot strike across the board.

As for pairs, the bishop is restricted to one color of square. By retaining both of your bishops your bishops can cover each others weaknesses. If you only retain one bishop and one knight an entire colored diagonal is safe from attack by your pieces now. a

A knight is not restricted to a color and so suffers less from being alone.

[SeanGGodley]

Theory and statistics have shown bishops to be better than knights in about 75% of positions. In particular with an open centre they are stronger - and in the endgame too they represent an advantage. Losing one bishop for a knight should be okay, but losing both of them you put yourself at the very least at a small disadvantage.

[Liguzh]

wow, where did u get that info from???? i have played chess for a year and always thought that bishops and knights are valued 3 points each... but i only could differenciate them depending on the position..... never thought of that big difference.

[SeanGGodley]

Yes, generally speaking they "have" to be valued both at three points. But when you look at theory and statistics, the bishops have been proven to be stronger - at least according to every chess book I have read. Hope this helps!

Sean

[gtamateur]

@Liguzh

[downding]

You're right. It's as incredible as it's simple! All that maneuvering just to win a pawn and maybe an exchange, but amazingly that's enough! I think that's a very instructive lesson for patzers like me.

[DuendeDude]

Wow ... incredible precision

[anyfekinnamewilldo]

Excellent upload again. Thanks Sean

[piedlin10]

Sean, your videos are awesome! It was nice to wake up to another Fischer game today. Thanks for taking the time to do this man!

[SeanGGodley]

No worries dude, glad you're enjoying them, more coming soon!

Sean