![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
it would be terrific if chess enthusiasts here could add in comments into the move notation. but please don't add copyrighted comments. Kingturtle 17:56 26 May 2003 (UTC)
I debated over this before I saved it. I chose refers to because the term "The Game of The Century" is subjective. There was no vote. There was no play-off. There was no objective way to decide which game was the "The Game of The Century". It wasn't billed with that name before the game. So we can't say it is or was....the name is completely subjective. And arguments can be made that other games were the "The Game of The Century". That is why I made the decision. I did not make a rash decision. I thought about it closely. Kingturtle 20:50 26 May 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to get rid of the PGN formatting - there's a link at the bottom of the page to the pgn version for anybody who wants it, but I think it's better for humans to read more natural looking text. -- Camembert
Would it be possible to add graphics of actual positions partway through the game, at appropriate places? I think it would greatly improve the article. I don't have the right software to produce relevant graphics, but I expect other people do. -- Cabalamat 17:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
An anon added an external link to http://home.att.net/~bobbyfischer/game_of_the_century_chess.htm for playing through the game in animated format. I like the feature but the accompanying article there is a verbatim copy of this one without attribution. I left a comment on that site, calling attention to the terms of the FDL. If Wikipedia is created there, the link here could be restored. As for the PGN link, I just got a 404 when I tried it. Is that just me or is the link broken? JamesMLane 18:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The external link now credits the Wikipedia and mentions the GFDL (I didn't realise this before my recent reversion, which is why I've restored it). I'm still not sure it's a very useful link for us to have myself, since it adds so little to the article, and you can play through the game at so many other websites (chessgames.com for one), but if people think it's useful, I'm not going to remove it. -- Camembert
So I played through this game with someone, playing the moves just as they are listed here, and I think there might be a mistake. after 15. ... Nxc3!, Black's knight is unprotected, and I find no reason why White won't respond with 16. Qxc3. I think Blacks knight should be protected by the bishop on g7, however this is blocked by the white pawn on d4. Am I missing something?
I believe that the well-known game played between Kasparov and Topalov in 1999 was played at Wijk an Zee, not Linares. -- Fermatprime 14:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if white responded Kh2 instead of Kf1 at move 36, how would black checkmate him?
36. Nd2 37.Kh1 Ra1+ 38.Kh2 Nf1+ 39. Kh1 Ng3+ 40.Kh2 Bf2 41.Qf8+ Kxf8 42. Nd7+ Ke7 43. Nc5 Rh1# xD
Following Black's Na4 sacrifice, I'm struggling seeing the following; "...after 17. gxf3 Bf8 produces a deadly pin" - I don't see it. Surely White counters with Be2? Black seems one piece away from forcing that pin? Can somepone point it out for me? :) -- Alexpritchard ( talk) 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I find it funny that this is referring to a chess match, because if you were to ask the typical American sports fan, the "Game of the Century" is the 1971 Thanksgiving Day matchup between #1 Nebraska and #2 Oklahoma, which is often thought of as the greatest college football game ever played.
"Fischer demonstrates ... poetry": While this is an impressive game, our description fails to back this statement up. Does "poetry" have a special meaning in chess, or is this at least a famous quote? If not, it should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Common Man 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I followed the link at the bottom of the page and found an almost-verbatim copy of this article on Fisher's website - it looks like this is a copyright violation. I've tagged it as such. 204.40.1.129 14:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states : "12. Qa3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Nxe4! Fischer again offers material in order to open the e-file and get at White's uncastled king." Could the author please make clear what material is Fischer offering precisely, which "Byrne wisely declines" ?
Black can't take white's bishop after Qxc3 because 19.Bxf7+! wins the queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 ( talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I ran the analysis on Houdini, and Houdini believes that the position is 2 pawns down for white, and white should not have taken that pawn on move 14, as the engine opted out for Be3 instead. Perhaps it is worth mentioning in the wikipedia page? 12.72.157.131 ( talk) 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Dark_wizzie
I've been brought here following a couple of maintenance tags that I placed being removed, as well as a note on my talk page. I wish to expand on my concerns and explain why I tagged the page as I did.
On the part about needing more citations: there are two places that definitely needing more citations, that being the first paragraph of the "Background" section and the full "The Game" section, as I explain below. I have marked the former with a {{ cn}} tag.
"The Game" section drew my WP:NPOV tag, and also needs citations. This section contains a lot of editorializing and original research. Some examples include:
9. Rd1 Nb6 10. Qc5
An awkward square for the queen, which leaves it exposed to a possible ...Na4 or ...Ne4, as Fischer brilliantly demonstrates.
14. Bxe7 Qb6 15. Bc4
Byrne wisely declines the offered material.
17... Be6!!
This stunning stratagem is the move that made this game famous.
24. Qb4 Ra4!
Fischer's pieces cooperate nicely: the bishop on g7 protects the knight on c3, which protects the rook on a4, which in turn protects the bishop on c4 and forces Byrne's queen away. Perhaps Byrne overlooked this move when analyzing 18.Bxb6, expecting instead 24...Nxd1?
et al, et al. The entire section suffers from lack of citations and unfounded claims of brilliance. The entire section should be rewritten with only sourced claims remaining. Nothing written here should be unsourced analysis as it largely is now; the only descriptions of moves should be obvious descriptions of the notation (i.e. Fischer castles) or analysis that can be sourced.
Anyways, that is my gripe with this article. Dea db eef 01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Bf4 d5
The game has now transposed to the Grünfeld Defence (5.Bf4, ECO code D92), usually initiated by 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5.
6. Qb3
A form of the so-called Russian System (the usual move order is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3), putting pressure on Fischer's central d5-pawn.
1. Nf3
A noncommittal move by Byrne. From here, the game can develop into a number of different openings.
1... Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7
Fischer defends based on "hypermodern" principles, inviting Byrne to establish a classical pawn stronghold in the center, which Fischer intends to target and undermine with his fianchettoed bishop and other pieces.
4. d4 0-0
[...] The Black move 4...d5 would have reached the Grünfeld Defence immediately. After Fischer's 4...0-0, Byrne could have played 5.e4, whereupon 5...d6 6.Be2 e5 reaches the main line of the King's Indian Defense.
I ran an analysis of the game on chess.com, and it said that 15. Nxc3 is a brilliant move, but the wiki page says it's a great move. The interesting thing is, that if you go to chess.com page of The Game of the Century, and run an analysis there, it says that 15. Nxc3 is a great move, just like the wiki (and also that 32. b5 and 33. h5 are great moves, but my analysis that I ran right now doesn't, and categorizes them as just excellent and best moves respectively). Should the annotation change? Or are there some rules on the wiki that I am not aware of about annotations? ElectroMaster88 ( talk) 19:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
it would be terrific if chess enthusiasts here could add in comments into the move notation. but please don't add copyrighted comments. Kingturtle 17:56 26 May 2003 (UTC)
I debated over this before I saved it. I chose refers to because the term "The Game of The Century" is subjective. There was no vote. There was no play-off. There was no objective way to decide which game was the "The Game of The Century". It wasn't billed with that name before the game. So we can't say it is or was....the name is completely subjective. And arguments can be made that other games were the "The Game of The Century". That is why I made the decision. I did not make a rash decision. I thought about it closely. Kingturtle 20:50 26 May 2003 (UTC)
I'm going to get rid of the PGN formatting - there's a link at the bottom of the page to the pgn version for anybody who wants it, but I think it's better for humans to read more natural looking text. -- Camembert
Would it be possible to add graphics of actual positions partway through the game, at appropriate places? I think it would greatly improve the article. I don't have the right software to produce relevant graphics, but I expect other people do. -- Cabalamat 17:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
An anon added an external link to http://home.att.net/~bobbyfischer/game_of_the_century_chess.htm for playing through the game in animated format. I like the feature but the accompanying article there is a verbatim copy of this one without attribution. I left a comment on that site, calling attention to the terms of the FDL. If Wikipedia is created there, the link here could be restored. As for the PGN link, I just got a 404 when I tried it. Is that just me or is the link broken? JamesMLane 18:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The external link now credits the Wikipedia and mentions the GFDL (I didn't realise this before my recent reversion, which is why I've restored it). I'm still not sure it's a very useful link for us to have myself, since it adds so little to the article, and you can play through the game at so many other websites (chessgames.com for one), but if people think it's useful, I'm not going to remove it. -- Camembert
So I played through this game with someone, playing the moves just as they are listed here, and I think there might be a mistake. after 15. ... Nxc3!, Black's knight is unprotected, and I find no reason why White won't respond with 16. Qxc3. I think Blacks knight should be protected by the bishop on g7, however this is blocked by the white pawn on d4. Am I missing something?
I believe that the well-known game played between Kasparov and Topalov in 1999 was played at Wijk an Zee, not Linares. -- Fermatprime 14:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if white responded Kh2 instead of Kf1 at move 36, how would black checkmate him?
36. Nd2 37.Kh1 Ra1+ 38.Kh2 Nf1+ 39. Kh1 Ng3+ 40.Kh2 Bf2 41.Qf8+ Kxf8 42. Nd7+ Ke7 43. Nc5 Rh1# xD
Following Black's Na4 sacrifice, I'm struggling seeing the following; "...after 17. gxf3 Bf8 produces a deadly pin" - I don't see it. Surely White counters with Be2? Black seems one piece away from forcing that pin? Can somepone point it out for me? :) -- Alexpritchard ( talk) 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I find it funny that this is referring to a chess match, because if you were to ask the typical American sports fan, the "Game of the Century" is the 1971 Thanksgiving Day matchup between #1 Nebraska and #2 Oklahoma, which is often thought of as the greatest college football game ever played.
"Fischer demonstrates ... poetry": While this is an impressive game, our description fails to back this statement up. Does "poetry" have a special meaning in chess, or is this at least a famous quote? If not, it should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Common Man 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I followed the link at the bottom of the page and found an almost-verbatim copy of this article on Fisher's website - it looks like this is a copyright violation. I've tagged it as such. 204.40.1.129 14:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states : "12. Qa3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Nxe4! Fischer again offers material in order to open the e-file and get at White's uncastled king." Could the author please make clear what material is Fischer offering precisely, which "Byrne wisely declines" ?
Black can't take white's bishop after Qxc3 because 19.Bxf7+! wins the queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 ( talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I ran the analysis on Houdini, and Houdini believes that the position is 2 pawns down for white, and white should not have taken that pawn on move 14, as the engine opted out for Be3 instead. Perhaps it is worth mentioning in the wikipedia page? 12.72.157.131 ( talk) 21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Dark_wizzie
I've been brought here following a couple of maintenance tags that I placed being removed, as well as a note on my talk page. I wish to expand on my concerns and explain why I tagged the page as I did.
On the part about needing more citations: there are two places that definitely needing more citations, that being the first paragraph of the "Background" section and the full "The Game" section, as I explain below. I have marked the former with a {{ cn}} tag.
"The Game" section drew my WP:NPOV tag, and also needs citations. This section contains a lot of editorializing and original research. Some examples include:
9. Rd1 Nb6 10. Qc5
An awkward square for the queen, which leaves it exposed to a possible ...Na4 or ...Ne4, as Fischer brilliantly demonstrates.
14. Bxe7 Qb6 15. Bc4
Byrne wisely declines the offered material.
17... Be6!!
This stunning stratagem is the move that made this game famous.
24. Qb4 Ra4!
Fischer's pieces cooperate nicely: the bishop on g7 protects the knight on c3, which protects the rook on a4, which in turn protects the bishop on c4 and forces Byrne's queen away. Perhaps Byrne overlooked this move when analyzing 18.Bxb6, expecting instead 24...Nxd1?
et al, et al. The entire section suffers from lack of citations and unfounded claims of brilliance. The entire section should be rewritten with only sourced claims remaining. Nothing written here should be unsourced analysis as it largely is now; the only descriptions of moves should be obvious descriptions of the notation (i.e. Fischer castles) or analysis that can be sourced.
Anyways, that is my gripe with this article. Dea db eef 01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Bf4 d5
The game has now transposed to the Grünfeld Defence (5.Bf4, ECO code D92), usually initiated by 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5.
6. Qb3
A form of the so-called Russian System (the usual move order is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Qb3), putting pressure on Fischer's central d5-pawn.
1. Nf3
A noncommittal move by Byrne. From here, the game can develop into a number of different openings.
1... Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7
Fischer defends based on "hypermodern" principles, inviting Byrne to establish a classical pawn stronghold in the center, which Fischer intends to target and undermine with his fianchettoed bishop and other pieces.
4. d4 0-0
[...] The Black move 4...d5 would have reached the Grünfeld Defence immediately. After Fischer's 4...0-0, Byrne could have played 5.e4, whereupon 5...d6 6.Be2 e5 reaches the main line of the King's Indian Defense.
I ran an analysis of the game on chess.com, and it said that 15. Nxc3 is a brilliant move, but the wiki page says it's a great move. The interesting thing is, that if you go to chess.com page of The Game of the Century, and run an analysis there, it says that 15. Nxc3 is a great move, just like the wiki (and also that 32. b5 and 33. h5 are great moves, but my analysis that I ran right now doesn't, and categorizes them as just excellent and best moves respectively). Should the annotation change? Or are there some rules on the wiki that I am not aware of about annotations? ElectroMaster88 ( talk) 19:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)