We'm also thinking about knowing a little concerning the individual he lost to. Of course he somehow got lucky, or was some type or kind of brilliant chess player himself. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1546218 ...
This image with the title of "U.S. chess prodigy, Bobby Fisher, playing 50 opponents simultaneously at his Hollywood hotel on 12 April 1964. He won 47, lost 1 and drew 2. [1025x736]" is one of a large collection of pictures from the category History . We collect quality images, from a social network website reddit.com
Source: To view the original source also read the full comments of the original poster as well as from other redditor, you can click on the following Link.
Some random comments on reddit about U.S. chess prodigy, Bobby Fisher, playing 50 opponents simultaneously at his Hollywood hotel on 12 April 1964. He won 47, lost 1 and drew 2. [1025x736]
- I'm also interested in knowing a bit about the person he lost to. And if he somehow got lucky, or was some kind of brilliant chess player himself.
- http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1546218 This is the only loss on April 12th 1964 I could find. Probably he lost to Donn Rogosin , not a well-known player. CG.com user andrewjsacks writes this about the simul and Donn Rogosin's father Hyman Rogosin , whose most significant claim to fame is a loss to the great American master Frank Marshall . My game was the one to Donn's right. I drew and so did another junior player named Nicholas Enequist. Out of the 50 boards, these three junior players were the only ones who scored against Fischer, in his +47 -1 =2 performance in Hollywood at the Knickerbocker Hotel. Hy (Hyman) was his father. A low-rated Master in the 30's and 40's, he lost a famous short game to Frank J. Marshall in 1940, a game in which Rogosin could have resigned before Marshall moved a single piece (in the Sicilian Wing Gambit). The game is published here and there, and is probably in this database. Andy Sacks' own game against Fischer from this day (the draw) is here . This backs up the claims.
- Fascinating, and thanks. Could you please explain: "...a game in which Rogosin could have resigned before Marshall moved a single piece (in the Sicilian Wing Gambit). to a non-chess player? Could not anyone resign before the opponent moves a single piece? What would be the point of that? Was this just a backhanded way of saying "he stood no chance"? Many thanks.
- In chess lingo, a piece is anything that's not a pawn. If you look at the game in question, Marshall moved only pawns for the first 14 moves, and at the 15th move he already had a crushing advantage.
- Here's the game if anyone wants to see it. I play chess a good amount so here's my thoughts on the match. The game starts going bad for Rogosin on his 3rd move by bringing out the knight to defend the pawn. And then the next move he didn't take the pawn but instead developed his other knight which was his downfall. After that Marshall can continually threaten the knights while pushing forward. Rogosin's only choices were to avoid the pawns while keeping trying to maintain some board control (which he did) or to waste a turn by moving them back to where they started (which isn't a good option either). So although the game lasted that many turns, it was mostly decided after only 4 moves in. It's still cool to see a start by moving pawns only, that's nearly unheard of for normal games.
- since you play chess, could you explain to me why on move 18 black doesn't take white's pawn with his own or his knight? I imagine the fear being rook takes knight, so send the pawn in to take the pawn, if rook comes to take pawn, take it out with knight, come out ahead, no?
- Situations like these can be pretty complicated and show why real games should usually last hours because the players need that time to think the moves through. I'm not 100% positive but it looks like he didn't take with the knight because that would: 1. put his knight on edge which really hurts a knight's usefulness, 2. he un-develop his only 'developed' piece, and 3. because it would allow white to move his knight infront of the queen pawn to get check and make black lose his option to castle. The pawn didn't attack because that would really weaken his king's side defense, it would also double his pawns causing him to either always guard it (which takes away from his possible moves) or to lose it when he moves his knight, and white would respond by putting him in check with his knight where the pawn would have guarded, making him lose his castle again. After he's put in check, he can either move over right which would trigger a huge king's side attack by white (one that he would find very hard to guard against due to pieces being locked in and bad pawn structure), or the king will move down which would prevent pieces from developing & it brings his king into the fight way too soon. His actual move looks like it was mainly to keep a strong pawn structure on his king's side at the cost of being put in check and losing his castle, which would have happened no matter what. So it was mainly due to him trying to keep position (which he was severely losing at) instead of gaining a piece in the short run.
- TIL I know very little about chess, outside of how the pieces move
- Thank you for the breakdown, its very interesting to see plays that would seem irrational to someone inexperienced as myself (if I can take it without heavy loses shouldn't I?) but actually make a lot of sense if you see all the options! Thanks!
- Taking with his pawn would damage his pawn formation badly. Taking with the knight puts the knight in a useless position, whereas moving the pawn forward actually improves his pawn structure nicely. The white pawn really isn't a threat there.
- I am sorry for my ignorance but how is that a win on the last move? I don't see the king in check or checkmate. Again, I am a new chess player. Read more comments