On Nov 2, 4:35 am, "help bot" wrote:

Phil My, what a poor memory you have -- for an IM, I mean.
It is well-known that GM Fischer's Knight move was a blunder,
but Spassky failed to capitalize on it and went on to lose.

I am not aware of any annotator who characterized Fischer's 11...Nh5
in the third game of the 1972 match as a "blunder," nor do I know of
any objective analysis proving it to be so. Spassky's followup, 12.Bxh5
gxh5 13.Nc4 Ne5 14.Ne3 Qh4! 15.Bd2, was less than optimal, but there
was no immediate refutation of 11...Nh5, which there would have to be
for it to qualify as a blunder.
Timman suggests that White could have improved with 14.Nxe5 Bxe5
15.Be3! f5 16.f4!, or with 15.Ne2 instead of the "feeble" 15.Bd2, but
he sees these as only giving White some advantage, not anything near a
win.

Of course it is not a "TN", as GM Fischer (you may have
heard of him) already played it in a world championship match!

In Innes' game ...Nf6-h5 came at a later point, and in a different
position, than the Spassky-Fischer game. If current theory extends to
that point, and the move had not been played before, it might qualify
as a TN (theoretical novelty). If theory does not extend that far, then
Innes' move is just one of several middlegame possibilities.

As a not-nearly-an-IM, I don't recall any specific series of
moves to refute this error, but of course I could simply work
it out OTB (yeah, right!). The refutation has been published,
but I couldn't say where, exactly.

I would be interested to know if, when, and where you find this
refutation. I have several books on the 1972 match. None present any
refutation of 11...Nh5, and most of them praise the move.