tpstar: <7...dxc3 ("The Comprimised Defense") is considered rather dubious as white usually gets an advantage with so many extra moves. 8...Qe7 is inferior to 8...Qf6 because a knight can go to d5 and disrupt black's army, also with threats of white playing Re1 if the black bishop moves. e7 is the best square for the knight in this opening, so the king can castle despite Ba3 or any other threats.>
It is rather amazing that after 7 ... dxc3 Black is three Pawns up (!) yet the database results strongly favor White.
<I can't help but discount Reshevsky's comments. He always struck me as quite jealous of his rivals--the erstwhile wunderkind forever petulant that he was eventually outdistanced. He made similar grudging comments about Fischer that reek of the faded beauty cattily sniping at the younger, prettier starlet. Certainly there's nothing in the Fine-Reshevsky record that would suggest a reason for arrogance on Sammy's part.>
Agree, yet the all-time greats certainly have private experiences and interactions which may affect their outlook and attitude that mere mortal outsiders would never learn.
<This really does not look like GM vs. GM chess. Black is horribly behind in development with his king uncastled and under assault. None of black's three active pieces support each other in any way or are even defended! Meanwhile white has a bishop on the a1 h8 diagonal and a rook dominating the open E file. (Black does have two extra pawns, which is nice because he can hold them and fidget with them hopelessly while he waits for Bobby to put him out of his misery.) You'd think Fischer got to this position in a simul against a C player, but this is against Reuben Fine! LOL.>
Fine was clearly unhappy that this offhand loss was published in a high profile book like MSMG.
<Fine calls himself "one of the two leading American chess masters of the twentieth century"?! Give me a break. How many U.S. Championships did Fine win, again? Zero. Fine was a fine player (bad pun intended), and probably has a better score against world champions than any other non-world champion (I think +1 against each of Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Botvinnik). His tie for first at AVRO 1938 with Keres (but Keres won on tiebreak) ahead of Alekhine, Botvinnik, Capablanca, Reshevsky, Euwe and Flohr was his shining moment, but he barely played chess after that. He declined his invitation to the 1948 World Championship Match-Tournament to study psychiatry. Fine almost invariably finished behind Reshevsky, who won all those U.S. Championships ahead of Fine, and Reshevsky's career was many decades longer.>
"Reuben Fine's decision to quit chess and concentrate on psychology was a loss to both professions"
<the loss is bad enough, why do people keep reubin it in?>
<Let's not forget that Reuben Fine had not played serious chess for about 15 years, he had become a psychoanalyst who wrote bad books and entered five, count'em five marriages, all ending in divorce, so he was a little too busy for chess. These were casual games played in Fines' home where he hosted Fischer probably out of chess and professional curiosity more than any thing else, and since Fischer did not know how to do anything except play chess, that is what he did against a hopelessly off-form and out of practice Fine.>
5 marriages and 5 divorces - I did not know that.
<In fact, there's a story about that tournament, that I believe is true. Fine's dropping out came so late that the Soviets were afraid he might change his mind and play after all. When Reshevsky arrived at his hotel to play, one of the Soviet delegation asked him "Who are you?" At least that's what he MEANT to ask. Since his English wasn't so good, he actually asked "HOW are you?" Reshevsky said "Fine", and the guy ran back to tell everyone that Fine had showed up after all.>
<This is without doubt one of the worst chess books ever written .... Reuben Fine, a World Championship contender and the author of some excellent books in the past, has no excuse for such a dog. Offering an analysis of all the games from the Spassky - Fischer match, he also presents a psychological insight into the minds of both protagonists. He fails badly in each of these objectives.>
Jeremy Silman on Fine's book.