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.


Jerzy wrote:
Uzytkownik "LiamToo" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...

What would a genius do to strenghten Spassky's confidence and make the
entire match interesting? Bxh2!! and then game 2.


I wonder whether Herr Fischer would play so if the match had been a 12-games
event ? :-)

If someone has a copy of No Regrets handy perhaps
they can find something on the Bxh2 move. If I
remember correctly, there was a question about
it in one of the interviews.

Louis Blair wrote:
If someone has a copy of No Regrets handy perhaps
they can find something on the Bxh2 move. If I
remember correctly, there was a question about
it in one of the interviews.

I can find only a very brief mention, on page 15. The first press
conference of the 1992 match, on 1 September, had this exchange between
Ivan Solotaroff of Equire magazine and Fischer:

Q: Why did you take on h2 in the game against Spassky in 1972? Were
you trying to create winning chances by complicating a drawn position?
A: Basically, that's right, yes.

Taylor Kingston wrote (28 Aug 2006 10:56:09 -0700):

7 I can find only a very brief mention, on page 15 [of No
7 Regrets]. The first press conference of the 1992 match,
7 on 1 September, had this exchange between Ivan
7 Solotaroff of Equire magazine and Fischer:
7
7 Q: Why did you take on h2 in the game against
7 Spassky in 1972? Were you trying to create winning
7 chances by complicating a drawn position?
7 A: Basically, that's right, yes.

_
This would seem to contradict the idea (mentioned by
LiamToo, 28 Aug 2006 07:57:23 -0700) that "Bxh2!!
and then game 2" was part of an attempt by fischer "to
strenghten Spassky's confidence and make the entire
match interesting".

LiamToo wrote:
That Bxh2!! was the most brilliant move that Fischer ever made. It was
even a draw after that but, it had to be done. It was simply a stroke
of genius.

As far as I know, this interpretation is unwarranted by the facts. I
believe the final verdict is that objectively, 29...Bxh2? was a bad
move, one that turned a theoretical draw into a loss. Extensive
analysis by Olafsson and Timman, on pages 38-40 of "Fischer World
Champion" (New In Chess, 2002) demonstrates this. That Spassky later
erred, playing 36.a4 instead of 36.Kg4, does not change 29...Bxh2? from
a bad move to good. The path to a draw allowed by 36.a4 was as narrow
as a wasp's waist, and Fischer failed to find it, playing 39...f5?
instead of 39...e5, and so ultimately he lost.

If Fischer were a poker player, he could have been a great
one too. As they sat down to play, Bobby saw poker tells from Spassky.
He saw fear.

Highly debatable. Fischer himself said "I don't believe in
psychology, I believe in strong moves."

What would a genius do to strenghten Spassky's confidence and make the
entire match interesting? Bxh2!! and then game 2.

I would instead tend to agree with Edmondson's assessment that,
psychologically speaking, it was 11...Nh5 in game 3 that beat Spassky,
if such a thing can be attributed to any single move.

Louis Blair wrote:
This would seem to contradict the idea (mentioned by
LiamToo, 28 Aug 2006 07:57:23 -0700) that "Bxh2!!
and then game 2" was part of an attempt by fischer "to
strenghten Spassky's confidence and make the entire
match interesting".

"Where and what is the contradiction? I have my opinion
and Bobby answered a question in the interview.

I bet ya Karpov and Kasparov have different opinions too.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
That Bxh2!! was the most brilliant move that Fischer ever made. It was
even a draw after that but, it had to be done. It was simply a stroke
of genius.

As far as I know, this interpretation is unwarranted by the facts. I
believe the final verdict is that objectively, 29...Bxh2? was a bad
move, one that turned a theoretical draw into a loss. Extensive
analysis by Olafsson and Timman, on pages 38-40 of "Fischer World
Champion" (New In Chess, 2002) demonstrates this. That Spassky later
erred, playing 36.a4 instead of 36.Kg4, does not change 29...Bxh2? from
a bad move to good. The path to a draw allowed by 36.a4 was as narrow
as a wasp's waist, and Fischer failed to find it, playing 39...f5?
instead of 39...e5, and so ultimately he lost.

If Fischer were a poker player, he could have been a great
one too. As they sat down to play, Bobby saw poker tells from Spassky.
He saw fear.

Highly debatable. Fischer himself said "I don't believe in
psychology, I believe in strong moves."

What would a genius do to strenghten Spassky's confidence and make the
entire match interesting? Bxh2!! and then game 2.

I would instead tend to agree with Edmondson's assessment that,
psychologically speaking, it was 11...Nh5 in game 3 that beat Spassky,
if such a thing can be attributed to any single move.

Have you read the opinion of Karpov on this move? If not, then research
it.
It's similar to mine.

LiamToo wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
That Bxh2!! was the most brilliant move that Fischer ever made. It was
even a draw after that but, it had to be done. It was simply a stroke
of genius.

As far as I know, this interpretation is unwarranted by the facts. I
believe the final verdict is that objectively, 29...Bxh2? was a bad
move, one that turned a theoretical draw into a loss. Extensive
analysis by Olafsson and Timman, on pages 38-40 of "Fischer World
Champion" (New In Chess, 2002) demonstrates this. That Spassky later
erred, playing 36.a4 instead of 36.Kg4, does not change 29...Bxh2? from
a bad move to good. The path to a draw allowed by 36.a4 was as narrow
as a wasp's waist, and Fischer failed to find it, playing 39...f5?
instead of 39...e5, and so ultimately he lost.

If Fischer were a poker player, he could have been a great
one too. As they sat down to play, Bobby saw poker tells from Spassky.
He saw fear.

Highly debatable. Fischer himself said "I don't believe in
psychology, I believe in strong moves."

What would a genius do to strenghten Spassky's confidence and make the
entire match interesting? Bxh2!! and then game 2.

I would instead tend to agree with Edmondson's assessment that,
psychologically speaking, it was 11...Nh5 in game 3 that beat Spassky,
if such a thing can be attributed to any single move.

Have you read the opinion of Karpov on this move? If not, then research
it. It's similar to mine.

I would guess you are referring to pages 343-345 of "Russians versus
Fischer (2nd edition, 2005), which has extensive comments on this move
by various Soviet players and officials: Botvinnik, Bondarevsky,
Krogius, Spassky himself, and Karpov. They contradict each other to a
great extent, and I see no reason to give more credence to any of them,
including Karpov, over Fischer himself or those close to him. Karpov's
analysis sounds more like an overly dramatic after-the-fact concoction
from a Hollywood screenwriter, or a TV psychologist trying to sound
omniscient, than anything that actually went through Fischer's mind
when deciding to play 29...Bxh2.
While I can't rule out Karpov's scenario, Occam's Razor inclines one
toward simpler explanations, like "Fischer miscalculated."

Taylor Kingston wrote:
I would guess you are referring to pages 343-345 of "Russians versus
Fischer (2nd edition, 2005), which has extensive comments on this move
by various Soviet players and officials: Botvinnik, Bondarevsky,
Krogius, Spassky himself, and Karpov. They contradict each other to a
great extent, and I see no reason to give more credence to any of them,
including Karpov, over Fischer himself or those close to him. Karpov's
analysis sounds more like an overly dramatic after-the-fact concoction
from a Hollywood screenwriter, or a TV psychologist trying to sound
omniscient, than anything that actually went through Fischer's mind
when deciding to play 29...Bxh2.
While I can't rule out Karpov's scenario, Occam's Razor inclines one
toward simpler explanations, like "Fischer miscalculated."

Well, William Ockham was a lazy nominalist. If he does know how to
solve a problem, he uses the lex parsimoniae. That's very dull.

Others have opinion and I tend to agree with Karpov. If Karpov were a
poker player, he could have been great one as well. Great poker players
tend to see the psychology behind everything. They like to paint a
story, ala Hollywood screenwriters, in order make a great decision on
the hand at play.

Nobody knows exactly what Fischer was thinking at that moment, however,
great poker players can tell, but not Ockham.

LiamToo wrote:
Someone wrote:
or maybe he was flat out lying, or highly exaggerating what happened, and
their were no crimes to bring anybody to book for?

You can call Bobby anything that you like. However, one of the things
that Bobby is NOT, is a liar. Nope, he was not lying.

This was the start of his hatred with the government.


You need to look deeper.

In fact, when Fischer was first approached on the street
by the Passadena police, he automatically went into his
psycho mode, indicating his issues with government went
back even further than indicated above. Fischer's refusal to
even give his name was symptomatic of deep psychological
issues -- very deep.


-- shrink bot