*But GM Evans had no excuse. He knew
better, but still lied through his teeth when he claimed
that White was not better, that he had not achieved
even the "vestige of an advantage". It is one thing to
claim that Black can hold a draw with perfect defense,
but it is quite another to simply lie in such a baldfaced
manner, the way Evans did. This kind of bias has no
place in chess analysis, even if it might prove useful
for political propaganda.* (Help Bot)

This guy poses as an authority but is truly a chess ignoramus.
EVERY BOOK that I have on this match says that the position
was drawish before 29...Bxh2.

Reshevsky, then, must also be lying when he
referred to Fischer's desire to play for a win.

THE FISCHER-SPASSKY GAMES by Samuel Reshevsky (Arco 1972)

Reshevsky wrote 29...Bxh2??

An incredible blunder. As we shall see soon, Fischer overlooked one
move at the disposal of Spassky, which he really should have seen.
IN HIS DESIRE TO PLAY FOR A WIN FISCHER BECAME CARELESS.
THE POSITION WAS EVEN (my emphasis)

FISCHER VS. SPASSKY by Svetozar Gligoric (The Chess Player 1972)

29...Bxh21 is a hardly believable oversight in an entirely drawish
position,
adding drama to a tranquil and rather monotonous beginning to the
match.

THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT (Quadrangle Books 1972)

And then came Fischer's electrifying 29...Bxh2. Many chess analysts
-- most, in fact -- saw this move as only one thing: an incredible
blunder (??).
But a more balanced analysis would make that symbol "?!" -- indicating
that
the element of risk is high but that perhaps the move really is one
with strong possibilities.


help bot wrote:
jr wrote:

This is the quotation that Parr cited.

BOBBY'S MOST FAMOUS MOVE

In CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 1972 GM Evans has this to
say about 29...Bxh2 in game one, which is probably Bobby's most
famous move.

A miscalculation which is not fatal in itself, although most players
attributed Fischer's loss to this capture of the "poisoned" pawn. Black
is not content to settle for a draw and he wants to keep winning
chances alive. Having demonstrated that the champion could not
achieve the vestige of an advantage with White, Fischer now seems
to be saying "you can't draw with me that easily!"

After 30 g3 GM Evans noted:

Spassky bolted upright in his chair. His first reaction must have
been that he overlooked something. "Fischer must see something
we don't," whispered a reverential fan. In the rear of the hall
Spassky's second, Soviet Grandmaster Ewfim Geller, was
smiling broadly from ear to ear.

Obviously, I was talking about Larry Parr's earlier quote;
the one where he said x, not y. (Help Bot)

What quote was that?

Where did Evans ever say that Bxh2 was anything but a miscalculation?


Thank you for *not* dishonestly snipping the quote I replied to,
the way spin-meister Larry Parr recently did.

Obviously, the part I was refering to was where GM Evans
stated flatly that Fischer was "not content to settle for a
draw" and "wants to keep winning chances alive". This,
simply translated, means that Evans is claiming Fischer
deliberately played the blunder Bxh2 as a means to his
desired end of "keeping winning chances alive". It is a
psychological "denial" of Fischer having blundered, as is
the commentary just above it, wherein GM Evans tried to
pretend that such a blunder is "not fatal". He reaffirms
this by placing the word poisoned in quotation marks, to
accentuate the (wrongheaded) idea that this move was
perfectly playable. He went on further to pretend that not
only did White have zero advantage, but that Black in fact
was not content to settle for a mere draw in such a
position! It just doesn't get any better than this.

In sum, a big slab of baloney is laid out before us, on a
plate. Pass the mustard, please.

Again, I don't blame Mr. Parr (or other cronies for that
matter) forcommiting such an error, as they simply aren't
strong enough chess players to realise what's going on in
that position. But GM Evans had no excuse. He knew
better, but still lied through his teeth when he claimed
that White was not better, that he had not achieved
even the "vestige of an advantage". It is one thing to
claim that Black can hold a draw with perfect defense,
but it is quite another to simply lie in such a baldfaced
manner, the way Evans did. This kind of bias has no
place in chess analysis, even if it might prove useful
for political propaganda.


-- help bot