Amazing Chess Game : Boris Spassky vs Bobby Fischer – World Ch. 1972 – Game 1 – Huge blunder!

Amazing Chess Game : Boris Spassky vs Bobby Fischer – World Ch. 1972 – Game 1 – Huge blunder!


Morning all. I’d like to address some coverage gaps on
the channel regarding the classic Spassky vs. Fischer match of 1972. Which caught the attention of the world media. In game one there was a very interesting game
and a very interesting apparent beginner’s blunder in inverted commas. Blunder which you know our club players might
make, my consider. So let’s have a look at this blunder and how
it might have occurred in Fischer’s mind. What was he thinking. So let’s have a look and many of you might
be aware already of the reasons behind it and I hope maybe some of this could be new
or interesting to others. Okay so d4 from Boris Spassky in that very
first game of the 1970 to match. Okay we see now Nf6, c4 from Boris and now
e6 as though wanting to play into Nimzo-Indian territory. If Nc3, Bb4 this is sidesteps now with Nf3
and instead of a Queen’s engine system Fischer elects for d5 okay and after Nc3 we get a
kind of hybrid system now with Bb4. So you might think this is quite peculiar
that a pawn is fixed now on d5 and still Bb4 that classic Nimzo-Indian type pin. E3 and after castles Bd3 and tension is put
on the center with now c5, a lot of central tension created by that move. After castles, Nc6 the tension is maintained
for the moments. But now after a3, okay is Fischer really get
a double pawns and treat it like a kind of Nimzo or is the center too fluid? If the pawn, if the bishop takes the knight
the center is strengthened. White as the bishop pair and the option of
CD and opening up some lines for the bishops is that going to be too dangerous? Well Fischer here elects to play instead Ba5. He doesn’t mind a temporary pawn sac here
which will investigate in the second pass through this game. If dxc5 for example is possible. But it looks intuitively if dxc5 then maybe
just Bxc3 and then trying to regain pawn. But we’ll check that out in a bit. Ne2 just securing D form for the moment and
now it looks as though dxc5 is much more on the cards without any Bxc3. So if dxc5 then b4 that could be a big huge
pawn on c5 marking out d6. So here Fischer actually takes on c4 and now
he plays Bb6 which supports that c5 pawn in case D take C for example and if D take C
is played and your notes here the Queen’s coming off and asymmetrical pawn structure. This is usually enough to often push the statistical
chances of a draw in high-level chess to well over 90% usually as a generalization. So it’s difficult for either side to generate
imbalances now with this pawn structure. So b4, Be7, Bb2 but it looks as though White’s
bishops are more enjoying the position at the moment than blacks. Black is on the back foot a little bit because
that e5 is really under lock and key. How to solve this problem Bishop here. Okay a tactic is used actually to help solve
the problem Bishop now, Bd7 it looks as though hang on a sec what about Bf6 and Rd7? Well I think Bf6 just Bxf6 stares at the rook
so there’s no Rd7 you just be losing the rook here. So this Bd7 is technically possible and is
played. Bishop maybe can go to e8 or make use of this
diagonal later on. So Rac1 and now it is indeed the case that
Bxf6 is on the cards. So with the Brooke protects the bishop on
d7 and then we see Ned4. Couple of Knights coming off and now the bishop
can make use of the a4 square and it does and it looks as though Fisher should be drawing
this. He has drawn with Spassky twice before this
world championship match, though he has lost three times. But surely this is good enough now for to
draw this position. Especially after this next Bishop exchange
much more simplified. No problems for black surely, no problem Bishop. Maybe a small issue okay is tactically a Knight
coming to a5 or c5 to probe b7 pawn. But not as big as be4 these issues here, not
as big as before. Rxd1, Rxd1 more simplification, Rc8 and it
looks as though hang on Rc2 could be useful as well at some point. Kf1. Coming away to the center of course leaving
h2 a bit vulnerable to potentially being attacked later, make a note of that. Kf8, Ke2, Ke4 okay and now Ke4 does mean that
Rd2 is ruled out against Rc2. So it’s time to challenge that rook on the
C file so that we are allowing the check. So Rc1 not minding change of Rooks. They could agree a draw here I think most
of the time. Most GMs might agree a draw in this position. Symmetrical pawn structure, there is two minor
pieces each, f6 though the game continues. Na5, Knight comes to protect b7. Kd3, Bd8 where’s the bishop going? It is threatening to double white spawns,
the Knight moves out of the way. Bc7 okay surely a draw now, another minor
piece exchange only same colored Bishop each. But okay we’ve seen the move b5. This is protecting a3, it is not a big deal,
b5 maybe the King can do something. But hold on a sec, a pawn is loose here. But hold on a sec? Why would you want to take that? Is it a bit risky? Now to be honest and we are going to have
to have a lot of honesty here with all you guys, boys and girls here; total honesty. Is this an obvious blunder or a brilliancy
to take this move, to take this opportunity to take the pawn? Blunder or brilliancy? Because you might think intuitively hold on
you take the pawn, g3 happens but surely you can get the bishop out with h5 and h4 isn’t
that worth looking into to get the bishop out? The Kings over here, it’s quite a few steps
away from h2 to try and munch the bishop. You try and surround the bishop, keep it in
prison with g3 and then the King comes to munch the bishop. Surely is this a blunder or brilliancy. Well it’s maybe nerves kicking in, it needs
precise calculation. Little delicate moves in chess you know you
can go from a start destination to an end destination and the route is significant,
very significant sometimes. Even though it looks as though virtually the
same number of steps from A to B. But the significance is in the route. Now here how can the King go to h2? Well let’s see, Bxh2, ok so far so good maybe
in Fischers’ calculations I would imagine. That of course he sees g3 and of course he
sees h5 and in fact, in fact from an engine point of view show this to an engine this
position let’s put on one engine now and look bishop h20 at depth 17, depth 17, depth 18,
Bh2 0.1 about equal as though it’s playable. Because the g3 h5, depth 19 about equal and
I’m breaking a rule here but for switching on engine nurse’s. But depth 20 okay it’s changing its tune away
from other moves. But we saw a glimmer that the engine for a
moment thought Bh2 was playable. Pardon that interruption now we will go through
that again on the second pass through this game. But Bxh2 is played here. Okay g3, h5 so far so good. So we have a start and an end destination
to munch the bishop. Okay the problem is, the problem is there’s
a fork in the road to get to the end destination. I hope not absolutely everyone watching this
video is totally aware of this game and this concept and why this miscalculation might
have happened. But here goes Ke2 and it creates a fork in
the road. Because after h4 there’s two ways now of getting
to this destination of munching the Bishop, f3 and f1 and you might think what’s the big
deal difference? The big deal about it is Fischer might have
calculated Kf1. There’s a huge difference. On Kf1 black has the resource hg here. Because if fg Bxg3 is possible, this is technically
possible here. Nothing can munch the bishop there. Now look at this route. Take this fork in the road, hg fg. The king is protecting the g3 pawn. Bishop is going to be munched with Kg2, say
bishop g1 Kg2 munch, end of bishop. So this fork in the road is a huge difference
here. A candidate for miscalculation Ke2 creates
two different destination possibilities. Route, I mean two different routes to the
destination either f3 or f1. Unfortunately for Fischer he sees now Kf3
and he sees his bishops lost, of course he wouldn’t have played into this a Bishop down. For what? A couple of Pawns, Ke7, the bishop is munched
now. Because let’s also point out something here,
that on the Kf1 line you might think hold on what’s the difference here you munch the
bishop like this Kg2, where is the bishop going? In this scenario, in this position there’s
the resource G takes F. So you can’t take the Bishop because it allows queening. So again you know Kf1 though is not as good
as the route taken Kf3. It just wins the bishop, it stops HG, the
king is protecting g3. Now I hope some of you, maybe that’s new to
some of you I don’t know please let me know in the comments I’m intrigued. This is an old classic game, I’m intrigued
if everyone was totally aware of this. Okay this blunder and the
Possible reasons behind it. I’m very interested, so Ke7 was played. The bishop is lost and we have high drama
in this match already. So Kd6 and there’s a classic picture I think
Fischer in the first game, he is seeing Spassky through the gaps and his fingers. He’s like, a horror movie or something. But it’s dramatic and Fischer I don’t know
he maybe he started raising issue with the cameras inside. Wanted to play other games in a back room
after this game. But he’s a Bishop down here. It’s really just technique now for Spassky
and bishop up for two pawns. These are token moves essentially. So f4 okay, the king is routing its way into
blacks territory and come and win that b7 pawn. Ok you might think keep up the opposition,
stop the King coming in but Be3 waiting, powerful waiting move to break the opposition created. Bf2, now Bh4. Okay Bg5 coming to blockade on e3 now, painful
this type of blockade. In mobilizing the pawn keeping control of
g5, asking black to move again. Now the King can come and threaten the e pawn
potentially. It comes again and now it’s gone isn’t it? It’s gone. Bf2, zugzwang compulsion to move pawn stop
dropping off and holding this pawn with a bishop is very useful. King just needs to maybe munch this and come
here now. Munched that pawn and goes for the b7 pawn
and it’s all over, Fischer resigned. Okay we did a bit of forensic investigation
before I mean it’s clear that Kc7, this might absolutely 100% sure as an example continuation
just in case. King can come and munch this pawn, there’s
always Bd4 to stop this pawn queening. So we reach this position. For example if it did play which you wouldn’t
do and now Pawn is won. But let’s go back earlier in the game and
look at the evaluations. I think it was about equal symmetrical pawn
structure, nothing to write home about really, black, Fischer was resourceful. He had an uncomfortable bishop here for a
moment. So small advantage for white technically as
well. Bd7, okay Bishop, sorry Rac1, now it’s about equal. You see the evaluations are about equal, should have been a draw. Okay this Rc2 all the time, let’s just check
this out. I am pretty sure Rd2 and then what? Nothing. So the invitation was harmless until Ne4 when
it’s dangerous now Rc2. This is the time to challenge the rook on
that D file. Okay minor minor issues now. I know this and we see Bh2 being mentioned
by the engine. Changes its tune later on. I’ll try and show you how it drops Bh2 here. Depth 19, it’s not an easy thing even for
an engine at depth nineteen. Maybe I need a faster computer. I’ve been told my nodes per second isn’t that
hot. I need a new computer, but let’s go with it. It’s dropped you see the advantage Ke7, it
was dropped. So why? So Bh2, g3, there’s also a mention after Ke7,
if Ke7, let’s have a look at this. What is the difference here? Well not much with difference. The King is just simply munching over here
isn’t it or is it, there’s a bit of a difference. Because there’s a two to one pawn majority
here. So the engine is recommending actually something
a little bit going a bit slower to reduce the counter play. Again another choice of the route to the destination. If Ke7 there is this idea of trying to get
to White’s Queen side pawns. So I think the engine recommendation is to
delay this journey. Black hasn’t made preparations to evict to
sort of try and break out Bishop. Yet with h5 and h4 delaying the journey with
Bd2 here. I believe now King d6 we can interrupt that
king with Bb4 check. Keep the King away from b5 and now okay Ke2. I believe f3 might be useful here now. F3, well Bf8 technically, Bf8 let’s go with
f3 and now we can surely he just munch the bishop clean with Kg2. Throw in b6 to double the pawns and that’s
a clean win of the bishop as well without too much counter play. So let’s go back. So this is interesting, the two possibilities
that need to be looked at. But there’s this deeper one, this rook, this
Kf3 must have been overlooked by Fischer. Kf3, that’s the move Kf1 is nothing. Kf1, it’s a total disaster. Black would be better, Kf3 White’s better. Different routes, same destination g2. On routes it’s protecting the g3 Pawn. Now what about h3? If h3 to stop Kg2, Kg4. Ouch but hold on what about the bishop winning
the Pawn you might ask, let’s go with this. Bxf2 now we need another trap for the bishop. We can’t play Kg2, because Be1, no we got
to play Bd2 here to stop the Be1 and now we’re going to play Kg2 and trap the bishop again. Let’s go with Ke7 or something, Kf7 we win
the bishop here. Okay there’s no time for the King to munch
b5 Surely. No there’s no time at all here. So the bishop whatever the way you take it,
it seems to be the Bishops doomed basically. In a nutshell the bishop is doomed in this
Kf3 continuation. So we get an advantage. Technically it doesn’t look like a big deal
actually on this brief analysis thing. But it’s the power of zugzwang coming in. The king is coming over here and we see blacks
compulsion to move is going to be his undoing here. This is making things easier this lovely blockade
and now Blacks Pawn stop dropping. So dramatic first game of the match. I hope that was something in there which maybe
you haven’t seen before. Comments or questions on YouTube, Thanks very
much.

75 thoughts on “Amazing Chess Game : Boris Spassky vs Bobby Fischer – World Ch. 1972 – Game 1 – Huge blunder!

  1. Okay up to a certain depth of calculation – after that it thinks Bxh2 is bad – computers work with "incremental depth search" – give them more time, and they can heal their "horizon effect" of calculation – being able to see "over the horizon" more.

  2. After ..h3 you'd get Kg4 Bg1, Kxh3 (not f3 or f4 because then ..h2!) Bxf2, Bd2 and the black bischop is trapped again..
    I haven't got an engine but 2 pawns for the bischop could be interesting, though I think it favors white here.

  3. Fischer miscalculated with Bxh2…King F3 was an important move….also I think he underestimated the fact that white Bishop is on c1 and pawn is on e3 that cuts black bishop escape route to g1…

  4. This could well be the case, I agree, he had an iq of about 180 and was certainly trying to f#$k with Spasski's mind.

  5. the blunder is not really Bxh2 but the idea that he could liberate the bishop with h5-h4. Which I'm certain Houdini would show instantly. And as someone else also pointed out, this is really a blunder wich doesn't need that much calculation and is very suspicious considering Fishers strength and personality..

  6. I don't think you're getting me right, I was just wondering why the program couldn't calculate it in the time that KC showed us the thing, I thought it had seen something else, that is all.

  7. I don't think the big deal is the king route, otherwise the engine would have seen it at all depths because it isn't so far away

  8. A clear blunder, I don't see how it can't be seen as one. It loses the bishop in every variation, with simple caculation needed by white.

    Fischer was exchanging everything off so it was him pushing for the draw with the black pieces, so the idea he was fed up and wanted to attack makes little sense, as he was playing for a draw.

    He blundered, end of story imo.

  9. I've looked at this play before and noticed that even a powerful engine does not censure it immediately and goes on to give only a small advantage to White. Far from the !amateur blunder" it is often called it is a GM blunder and not all that bad a one Imho the decisive blunder is 37…Ke4? Using DF13 after 37…a6 Bf8 axb5 axb5 Kf2 g6 black shoulld hold the draw – white has not enough pawns left.

  10. It cracks me up the way players who arent fit to have polished Fischer's Bishop call him overrated and making an "obvious blunder". not only does a powerful engine not spoti it immediately, it only rates slight advantage to White when it does change. Fischer was well-known to always fight for a win down to the Kings and he destroyed Spassky with his next Black. Although the Bishop is always lost, there was still a good chance of rescuing the draw, as in my prior comment.

  11. Bxh2 was not technically the deciding blunder of the game if a blunder at all. there were inaccuracies (Ke4) after that but then again they might have been due to getting depressed about overlooking Kf3. really you would have to rethink what you mean by a blunder. is it a move that loses a clinical or a psychological advantage or just playing a move without really understanding it.

  12. Bxh2 is a blunder. It gives white winning possibilities in an otherwise drawn position. While the advantage is not great from a technical point of view, it meant that with best play the bishop was sacrificed for 2 or 3 pawns which was not Fischer's intention as evident from the game continuation. Later mistakes are consequences of that prime miscalculation IMHO.

  13. I wondered that, but it also sees that Fischer gets two pawns for it immediately and White has only a small advantage. I've noticed online that Deep Rybka has sometimes given this as winning for White, other engines dont and I've spent a few hours with Deep Fritz and it appears drawn. It would be nice if a GM without 2020 hindsight would give their opinion on this. Can Black survive?

  14. Before this viideo I had always thought that Fischer blundered like a patzer in this game with Bxh2. But it isnt quite so clear is it? Reading the comments below some people think Black should be able to draw after Bxh2 while others think it is lost.

    What is clear is that after Bxh2 Black has no winning chances left and is struggling to stay in the game. But that is sufficient reason to say that Bxh2 is a "blunder".

  15. After seeing your analysis, I'm surprised that Fischer would think that Spassky would blunder with Kf1?? rather than Kf3! to trap the bishop. Despite the blunder, I feel that Spassky was still quite a genius for Fischer to cope with in '72. Awesome explanation kingscrusher.

  16. Para la comunidad latina ya está disponible la 1ra partida del match Spassky-Fischer comentada en español. Este es el link: /watch?v=YdhUGhi65RI

  17. there is another blunder at the very start at 1:16… before castling spassky's best move is Qa4 putting fischer in check then getting a free bishop
    Am i the only one seeing this or is something wrong with getting it?

  18. you are wrong, after capturing the rock on a1, the black bishop is perfectly safe… and black is up the exchange

  19. i believe Capablaca played on the move 4.Knight d2 and the Shredder opening database gives only the black moves 4…Be7 or 4….c5. Jonathan Speelman claims that after Fischer Bxh2?! there is the way to get a draw.

  20. I believe 29…Bxh2 was Bobby's psychological mistake to play the hardball while having all those demons on his back. After Black Bishop is gone, it was still a way long shot for White to encash the material advantage anyway. Along the way Boris did it better than Bobby.
    My Houdini loved 29…Bxh2 as well. Houdini gave it (0.41) DEPTH 26/64.
    39.b6 by Spassky had won this brain killer; (0.60) DEPTH 23/55. Back in 1972, Botvinnik had pointed out exactly that. Bobby’s 40…f4 wiped his chances out

  21. is the houdini engine 64bit? but i suppose that would only enable it to speed through only 3-4 more depth levels before its too slow

  22. It would be simple answered wth Nc6, defending and developing a piece at the same time… Qa4 is just a to early try to attack… kind regards!

  23. 18:24
    You can play h3 if you like, but the king will furl from behind the pawn on g4 to munch the h pawn, Bishop's only square is g1, he can take on g2 but Bd2 will stop Black Bishop's journey and finish the game..

  24. 1972 Fischer vs Spassky Match Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9BA54AA2DDBF3BB0

    Join me for a game: http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/asplogin.asp?from=1053

  25. I think it's pretty clear a player of Fischer's caliber would never not take both Kf1 and Kf3 into consideration, moves made by the same piece and with the same (and forced) idea, of getting to g2, no matter how many moves deep into his calculation.
    I think it's far more likely that what he missed is, after Kf3 h3 (threatening Bg1 and h2, which is probably winning for Black, I guess, because White would then be playing the endgame without his King), Kg4 Bg1, Kxh3 Bxf2, the quiet intermediate move Bd2, instead of the more natural Kg2, attacking the Bishop. This is already 12 ply, and I think it's far less likely somebody in Fischer's class would miss something as obvious as Kf3 at 6 ply than their missing something not all that obvious (like Bd2) at 12 ply.
    Obviously, it's still a highly unexpected miscalculation (in a rather simple position) coming from Bobby Fischer, so I would say "blunder" isn't an entirely inaccurate term, considering, but it was his first game in a World Championship match, after all… so I think it's completely forgivable, especially considering the overall standard of his play in the match from then on and, of course, the brilliant chess he had displayed throughout his career up to that point.

  26. Did you consider the variation 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 c6 6. f3 b5 7. Nge2 Nbd7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Bb7 10. a3 e5 11. O-O-O Qe7 12. Kb1 a6 13. Nc1 O-O-O 14. Nb3 exd4 15. Rxd4 c5 16. Rd1 Nb6 17. g3 Kb8 18. Na5 Ba8 19. Bh3 d5 20. Qf4 Ka7 21. Rhe1 d4 22. Nd5 Nbxd5 23. exd5 Qd6 24. Rxd4 cxd4 25. Re7 Kb6 26. Qxd4 Kxa5 27. b4 Ka4 28. Qc3 Qxd5 29. Ra7 Bb7 30. Rxb7 Qc4 31. Qxf6 Kxa3 32. Qxa6 Kxb4 33. c3 Kxc3 34. Qa1 Kd2 35. Qb2 Kd1 36. Bf1 Rd2 37. Rd7 Rxd7 38. Bxc4 bxc4 39. Qxh8 Rd3 40. Qa8 c3 41. Qa4 Ke1 42. f4 f5 43. Kc1 Rd2 44. Qa7. ? 

  27. I like to think that i play chess in a similar style as Tal and because of this I don't consider the bishop situation to be a blunder if fischer had only played it differently.  I dont quite understand what King e7 is doing. I see blacks moves as being h3,(king g4) Bishop g1, (king takes h) bishop takes f2, (bishop d2) a3 to avoid the white bishop's attack when it takes black's bishop on e3, take back on a3 if white takes or bishop xe3 if king to g2(if king doesn't go to g2 or bxa3, the only other moves for white are simple pawn pushes on a or b files and black can then mobilize his king, e pawn or even the g pawn. I see it being a very good end game for black with a stagnant queen side and a 3-1 pawn majority on the king side. I believe that luring the white king to g7 is the optimal plan for the bishop sack and black proceeding with g5 is key to limiting whites bishop to queen side movements, then using his king to protect the backwards pawn and advancing slowly but surely to a queen. Whites king has made his life troublesome by moving backwards and several different pawn advances can be made. I see draws and wins for black in all the variations I've played out. Im an amateur though, i could be missing something but i like playing when Im up 5 pawns to 3 or 4 to 1 against a bishop when my pawn majority has already made key advances up the board.

  28. HUGE fan of this channel – my chess has definitely improved in all three phases as a result. You are probably aware there is a movie in production with regard to the Fischer/Spassky 72' match titled "Pawn Sacrifice".  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596345/  Hopefully it will prove as interesting as the book by Richard Roberts which prompted me back to chess many years ago, "Fischer/Spassky: The New York Times Report on the Chess Match of the Century".

  29. To kingscrusher…..thanks so much for posting:
    This is a perfect example of how the slightest blunder can happen to anyone, and how they can be magnified with players at the highest level.
    As for me, I'm no Grandmaster, but like many other things in life, the more you learn about something, the more you appreciate it.
    It's all about the battle.

  30. This game shows the weakness of Fischer's unforgiving playing style.  He drew less often than any other grandmaster.  He always played to win.  Even in a drawn position, like this one, he would push for an advantage.  That caused him to overextend himself and blunder the game away.

  31. Thank you! I just saw Pawn Sacrafice, and was curious as to just how much of a blunder this move was. Indeed a blunder, but not an obvious one…especially as you have shown a computer engine to at first think the King is perhaps too far away to zap the Bishop. Honestly, I'm a poor player and could have easily made such a blunder; but the fact that the King appeared so far away, and counting the moves was a mistake unlikely to be made by a GM…however, Fischer was apparently easily distracted (at least according to the movie)…and this move showed the result. Again, thanks!

  32. It's amazing the blunder itself and this shows you the overall complexity of Chess.

    First of all; I first heard about this blunder on a Bobby Fisher documentary. They just mentioned that he made this type of blunder and I had a clear image of the type of blunder; but I didn't see the position itself. Thus I had only to think of Bobby Fisher as stupid.

    But then I saw a video of a gentle man explaining the blunder in more technical means with illustration, and said Bobby Fisher really could see six moves ahead but probably not the seventh. I didn't get to see the whole video and thus search for it and found this video, which is just as good.

    After seeing the annotation I now understood that Bobby Fisher did deep calculation into the candidate move, but either missed Kf3 altogether, was just eager for a winning continuation, got faint in his visualization or something. He point blank assessed the move inaccurately, and Boris Spasky was just long awaiting Fisher to capture the poison. Notice that his Bishop never left c1.

    But this is just the complexity f Chess. I never thought that the variations it get so COMPLICATED!!! I thought king back and capture the Bishop. But then I found Bg1 for black and other viewers saw the highly inspired move h3. However all of them lose and Boris Spasky had the technique to win with the slight advantage.

    Finally I must criticize Fischer'calculation ability. It wasn't a thicket of variations. It was just one variation to calculate with few off shoots. I personally could have calculated all of the lines and see that Bxh2 is bad.

  33. back when chess was actually exciting, the pre computer era. Now they play some boring opening and draw after 20 moves, because nobody wants to do anything

  34. Fischer could have also gotten into the draw path as late as on his 31st move, instead of 31…h4 he should have went with 31…Ke7. Immediately bringing the King to the center.

  35. can someone please explain to me why Bobby doesn't play G5 after he has lost the bishop and before the white Bishop can cover that diagonal

    wouldn't he have two passed pawns on that side of the board then

    The engines don't see it as making blacks position any better so I'm sure there's a reason why it doesn't work

    But just from looking at it it would seem that he played G5 with his Pawn before the white Bishop can cover that diagonal then he could Advance both points on that side of the board with the protection of the king and potentially make 1 into a queen

    Anyway if anyone knows about that G 5 move and can tell me why doesn't work I'd appreciate it

  36. move 42 please explain why Bobby doesn't play G5

    How would white stop the two Pawns

    engines don't show it as making any difference but I'd like to understand why those two pawns wouldn't be very powerful for black

  37. Any way you slice it, it's still a blunder that cost Fischer the game. Fischer thought so, as did everyone else.

  38. I have read that Fisher sometimes made surprizing sacrifices to throw off his oponent…could this have been the case here?

  39. I mean i wouldn't call this a major blunder because doesn't the engine somehow find a way to survive after bishop takes? I have't really looked into the full engine line.

  40. I'll always remember 29… Bxh2. Believe it or not they used to summarise the pieces each player had on the hourly Radio Luxembourg bulletins. I remember when they did it during this game and being mystified about how Fischer ended up a bishop down!

  41. Replayable game link: http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/ltpgnviewer32/ltpgnboard.asp?GameID=3285426&v=f8DeBZddtX0 – Cheers, K

  42. I saw Fischer would lose his Bishop, but I expected Fischer was going to trade it for the f2,g3,h2 pawns, then use his his 4 pawns to win against pawn & Bishop on right side of board. Cant think far enough to know if that was possible but thought that was his angle for getting a win from a draw, which Fischer never liked, never untill the 11 draws of this series, guess this game changed his mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *