jr wrote:

*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.


Are you trying to "change the subject" for some
reason? The issue related to the Spassky/Fischer
game, not to who is or is not an authority, etc.

That really deserves a thread of its own, and quite
a thread it might be.


EVERY BOOK that I have on this match says that the
position was drawish before 29...Bxh2.


Ish? What the heck happenned to Larry Parr's
version, where it was "dead drawn"? And why won't
you support the version given by Evans, which never
once used the word draw"ish"? It is becomming
next to impossible to tell where any of the ratpackers
stand, because their feet keep dancing all over the
place! One thing these ratpackers cannot be accused
of is lethargy. LOL!


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


A lie requires a deliberate attempt to deceive. Now
what exactly was Reshevsky attempting to do? Keep
in mind that baseless speculation is not the same
thing as lying.


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

Reshevsky wrote 29...Bxh2??


Thank God! I was beginning to wonder if some
bizzarre virus had infected all the strong players.

A double query means that Fischer blundered.


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.


That last comment was wrongheaded. There are two
possibilities he

1. Fischer miscalculated, missing that his Bishop would
in fact be trapped, which Spassky obviously saw a half-
move earlier.

2. Fischer saw that he loses his Bishop, but believed
the tempi gained while Spassky rounded it up was
plenty of compensation, when added to the pawns.

In neither of these scenarios does Fischer have any
decent chances of winning, only drawing, due to a lack of
material to work with. In fact it is White who comes out
ahead in these exchanges, so it was Spassky whose
winning chances were enhanced, not Fischer.

The opening play by Spassky nixed any notions
Fischer may or may not have had about trying to
win the first game. However, there is always a
White in game two.


THE POSITION WAS EVEN (my emphasis)


Wrong. White had a slight edge, as any *strong*
player can plainly see. Patzers aside, the question
is "can Black hold"? Here most GMs agreed that he
can, but then, "most GMs" have been proved wrong
before. One such example is where the endgame
tablebases overturned what was long accepted by
"most GMs" as the correct result in several types of
endgames. Another example would be the chess
books wherein early analysis -- just like your list of
work done in 1972 -- is refuted outright, after more
careful examination by others.



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

29...Bxh21 is a hardly believable oversight in an entirely drawish
position,


Again, nowhere to be found is the word "dead", as in
the "story" told wherein the position was allegedly "dead
drawn", according to one ratpack leader.


adding drama to a tranquil and rather monotonous beginning to the
match.

THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT (Quadrangle Books 1972)


Robert Byrne? The NY Times does not write anything;
they hire real people to do this for them.


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.

I agree.

The strongest possibility was that Spassky would now
win the game, which otherwise might possibly have been
held through stubborn and resourceful defense.

Speaking of a "balanced" analysis, I hear that Timman
and pals analysed that Bxh2 lost perforce, BUT Spassky
then erred, allowing a narrow escape, BUT then Fischer
erred, falling back to a lost postion, which Spassky won.
Note the "balance" here. Nobody tries to pretend their
hero is infallible, or that he never slipped up when in fact
he did. Now that's balance, my friend. And hardly the
first time Timman has "busted" careless analysis by other
GMs. Aside from hard work, the main thing is to remain
objective, and not jump to conclusions prematurely.

-- help bot