You failed to address the key point that Spassky *accurately* calculated
the
variations after Bxh2?, while Bobby did not.
Getting a paltry two pawns for a Bishop is still a blunder, even if made by
a
non-beginner! To believe that Fischer is incapable of blundering simply
because he is not a beginner, is a clear sign of idolatry, even if you cannot
see it, yourself -- a submerged idolatry.

It's not likely he blundered.

More likely he blundered in thinking he had more compensation than he did.
It's difficult to win an ending with few pawns even when a piece up.


Take a look through articles and books on grandmasters and you will find
*many* examples of this word ("blunder") being used to describe poor moves by
even the greatest chessplayers of all time!

Fischer had won 20 in a row leading up to the title match (a streak broken by
Petrosian).

These writers seem to have moved
beyond the "denial" stage you are still stuck in. They have accepted the
fact
that even world champions are not infallible.

It's not likely Fischer expected to keep his bishop in that position.


That games between the chess greats are sometimes decided by one of the two
great players failing to "see" something fairly simple. Spassky's own
phrase:
"one-move blunder," does not apply here, because it took several moves to
entrap and capture Bobby's hung piece. But Spassky HIMSELF has used this
term
to describe his own play against Fischer, contrary to your silly insistence
that only "beginners" blunder. Spassky was a world champion, and he says
that
they do blunder, so there!

What they call a "blunder" is relative.

Most A-players or below wouldn't even recognize most grandmaster "blunders" as
even being mistakes.

And he can prove it, too.

I've beaten people who've beaten Fischer. Have you?

Southpaw wrote (Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:58:08 +0100):

Whether Fischer thought that the two pawns and the time it took
Spassky to march his king from d3 to get the bishop would be
compensation, or whether he did actually miscalculate the line
involving 32...h3 33 Kg4 Bg1 34 Kxh3 Bxf2 35 Bd2!, we will
never know since Fischer has hardly commented on it, and could
hardly be considered to be objective even if he did.

I wrote (Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:33:36 -0500):
Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me, but I thought that
there was a brief comment by Fischer on the matter in that
book, No Regrets. Can anyone check to see what (if anything)
he said about it?


Southpaw wrote (Sat, 5 Jul 2003 13:41:51 +0100):

Louis - I've not read No Regrets. My only knowledge of Fischer
commenting on the case is during the press conference before the
92 match - "Why did you take on h2? Were you trying to create
winning chances by complicating a drawn position?" "Basically
that's right. Yes". We can take what we like from that.

_
I think that is the quote that I had in mind. I guess it is not very
helpful for this discussion. Perhaps there is something about the
matter in that Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of the World book.

Fischer
commenting on the case is during the press conference before the
92 match - "Why did you take on h2? Were you trying to create

Fischer
commenting on the case is during the press conference before the
92 match - "Why did you take on h2? Were you trying to create
winning chances by complicating a drawn position?"


In a courtroom, this is called "leading the witness," and is forbidden for
the simple reason that the questioner is pushing for his own desired version of
an answer, rather than the objective truth of the matter.


I have never seen Bobby annotate any game using such words as "I was trying
(without success?) to create winning chances by complictaing, blah, blah...."
In fact, "winning chances" sounds more like the phrase of a gambler, and
"complicating" sounds more like something a Tal might have done.
In fact, a close examination of the position reveals that it should have been
possible to calculate -- and not merely guess -- the result of Bxh2? This was
an ending, with relatively few men on the board, and Bobby was no putz when it
came to calculation.


The best source of info on this matter may be Spassky, who no doubt has
discussed this with Bobby, personally.




"Some days, you give a lesson, and some days, you get a lesson." -Fischer

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
...
Southpaw wrote (Fri, 4 Jul 2003 19:58:08 +0100):

Whether Fischer thought that the two pawns and the time it took
Spassky to march his king from d3 to get the bishop would be
compensation, or whether he did actually miscalculate the line
involving 32...h3 33 Kg4 Bg1 34 Kxh3 Bxf2 35 Bd2!, we will
never know since Fischer has hardly commented on it, and could
hardly be considered to be objective even if he did.

I wrote (Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:33:36 -0500):
Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me, but I thought that
there was a brief comment by Fischer on the matter in that
book, No Regrets. Can anyone check to see what (if anything)
he said about it?


Southpaw wrote (Sat, 5 Jul 2003 13:41:51 +0100):

Louis - I've not read No Regrets. My only knowledge of Fischer
commenting on the case is during the press conference before the
92 match - "Why did you take on h2? Were you trying to create
winning chances by complicating a drawn position?" "Basically
that's right. Yes". We can take what we like from that.

_
I think that is the quote that I had in mind. I guess it is not very
helpful for this discussion. Perhaps there is something about the
matter in that Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of the World book.

There is an excellent discussion of Fischer's likely thought process at the
point at which he played 29...Bxh2 in "How to Beat Bobby Fischer," by Edmar
Mednis. Basically, it was that, 1. Any decent player would know not to play
that capture because the bishop immediately gets trapped. Fischer looked a
step further than that and 2. "Saw" that he could get his bishop out by
marching his h-pawn down the board, thretening to actually come out a pawn
ahead (in the line 30. g3 h5, 31 Ke2 h4 32 Kf3 h3! 33 Kg4 Bg1 34 Kxh3 Bxf2),
leading to a position with unbalanced pawns and leaving open the possibility
of playing for a win. What he failed to do was 3. Consider the possibility
of 35 Bd2, keeping his own bishop trapped. According to Mednis, "What
happened to Bobby was that in his eagerness he neglected to go through step
3 and impetuously made his final decision after step 2."

For what it's worth, anyone who has ever read Fischer's "My 60 Memorable
Games" would realize that Fischer himself recognizes the possibility of his
blundering. Or as he put it in one of his radio interviews, "if I play
great I play great, and if I blunder my queen or walk into mate in two that'
s real." One thing I always liked about Fischer's personal style was that
he simply knew that he was the best player in the world, but that he wasn't
God.

For what it's worth, anyone who has ever read Fischer's "My 60 Memorable
Games" would realize that Fischer himself recognizes the possibility of his
blundering.


The blunder in question happenned in 1972, after Fischer had improved quite a
bit from the level at which he stood when writing MSMG. As he improved, he
also became more arrogant and demanding. When writing MSMG, Bobby was very
careful to include non-wins, so as not to look like, well, like what he later
became. One example of his very arrogant attitude was a comment he made when
rejecting an offer of millions of dollars.
Another came in his answer to the question as to why he had not played
"anybody" since 1972. I really doubt Fischer could have been THAT arrogant
back when he wrote MSMG!






Or as he put it in one of his radio interviews, "if I play great I play
great, and if I blunder my queen or walk into mate in two that's real."


Real, as opposed to Bobby's absurd claim that ALL top level chessgames are
now prearranged, in advance.
I get the reference to blundering his Queen (allowing it to be trapped), but
offhand, I can't think of a game where Bobby may have walked into a
mate-in-two.


One thing I always liked about Fischer's personal style was that he
simply knew that he was the best player in the world, but that he wasn't
God.


Bobby "knew" the King's Gambit was busted.
Bobby "knew" that Kortchnoi had deliberately thrown games only to hurt HIM.
Bobby "knew" the Passadena police LIVED and BREATHED only to get him.

Bobby "knew" that World Jewry exists primarily in order to persecute HIM. (Why
else would ANYONE exist?)

Bobby "knew" so many things, including that he was the best player in the
world, not counting Russian cheaters. Then he "learned" that even if you do
count them, he was still the best! Then he "learned" that real chess came to
an abrupt halt, at the very moment he decided to "retire," by strange
coincidence.

He now "knows" everything about the USA, and the Jews, and he can "prove"
that all his successors' games were "fixed."

Of course Bobby also "knows" that he isn't God. He knows EVERYTHING,
unastan'?