That doesn't make much sense. This was game 10 and tied the match at 1-1. Given that it was clearly home preparation I would think Anand could shrug it off relatively easily. His losses with white against the Dragon in games 11 and 13 which put him behind 3-1 were probably much tougher to recover from; particularly since he didn't play well in these games.

<15. Nb3 was prematch preparation. In fact Kasparov was fantasizing so much about playing it during the previous game, that he lost that game to Anand!>

With all due respect, no one knows.

<littlefermat: ..."Chess prowess" can be defined as an umbrella term and psychological pressure is one of those elements. By attributing his wins more to psychological pressure than the quality of play is completely inaccurate, in my opinion. Probably the other way around. His opponents felt tremendous psychological pressure <because> of the quality of Fischer's play. >

Fischer, while a great player, was motivated by something rather different than that which drives most great players. His main goals were 1) to become World Champion; 2) to beat the Russians. He said so on numerous occasions. These motivations gave his play, and his attitude toward the game, a Messianic cast. It shows a certain consistency with his involvement with Garner Ted Armstrong's Church of the Air.

But desires die of fulfillment. Once Fischer had achieved both his goals, what was left for him? To defend his title? I doubt that was of much interest to him. According to what I've read, those who kept in touch with him in the later Seventies found it hard to get him interested in chess. In the years before his death, he had apparently lost interest in the standard game, merely dabbling occasionally in Chess960.

Chess at the highest levels is more complex than ever before. The degree of preparation required to compete at that level is appallingly intense, which is why some of the top players have begun to object to the relative ease -- yes, I know how that looks -- of attaining grandmaster rank. If your motivation is not strong, your ability, however great, will not be deployed. If what's required of you to do X, regardless of what X is or what rewards might flow from succeeding at X, exceeds your will to apply yourself, you'll sit on the sidelines.

I think that 11...Qxg5 is weak because of 12.Qf3!, after which I don't see any great line for black. Don't quote me on this though... I remember reading it in a book a long time ago and I'm not sure that's correct.

[Event "NED-chT corr"]
[Site "Netherlands"]
[Date "1990.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Van den Berg"]
[Black "Nevestveit, Oddbjorn"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C80"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "1990.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn (corr)"]
[EventRounds "10"]
[EventCountry "NED"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1997.09.01"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Nbd2 Nc5 10. c3 d4 11. Ng5 dxc3 12. Nxe6 fxe6 13. bxc3 Qd3 14. Bc2 Qxc3 15. Nb3 Rd8 16. Bd2 Qxe5 17. Re1 Qd5 18. Nxc5 Bxc5 19. Bb3 Qd4 20. Rxe6+ Ne7 21. Kh1 Qxf2 22. Rxa6 h5 23. Bg5 Rxd1+ 24. Rxd1 Ba7 25. Re6 Qc5 26. Bxe7 Qxe7 27. Bd5 Qxe6 28. Bxe6 Ke7 29. Bf5 Rf8 30. Rd7+ Ke8 31. Rd5 c6 32. Bg6+ Ke7 33. Re5+ Kd6 34. Rf5 Rxf5 35. Bxf5 c5 36. Kg1 0-1

this is something of a problem because chess had so many rule variations in Europe when the game came from the Muslim world. So would 1.e4 e5 count in games where the Queen could only move one square on its first move!

The (not very acurate) answer would be some time around the turn of the 16th Century when the game got the rules we know now. Lucena (1497) and Damiano (1512) wrote the first opening books. Damiano suggested 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 of course.