More analysis needed! What do you all think?>

Robert Byrne covers this line in "Both Sides of the Chessboard". He says, "17.Qe3 does not work either: 17...Nd4 18.Kf1 Nxc2 19.Qd3 Rg4 20.Qxc2 Rxc4 21.dxe6 Qxc3 22.e7 Rxd1+ 23.Qxd1 Qh3+ 24.Ke1 Qd7 and wins."

He says that the critical move is 17.Ne4

And then Capablanca refuted it, over the board.

The Marshall Ruy Lopez is amazing and complicated and still debated after all these years.

I can only imagine Marshall having a drink after the game with Capablanca.

What do I have to do to beat that guy? I just spent ten years analyzing and coming up with all the ifs. And he still beats me.

And I have no idea why he thought New York 1918 was the right time. It wasn't that big a tournament.

<And then Capablanca refuted it, over the board.>

As history has shown, you are correct. But the feeling at the time had to be that the idea was refuted.

Refutation for Marshall was defeat for that game.

I would feel refuted if I had spent ten years working on an opening surprise and still got beat.

I was trying to think inside Marshall's head from a century ago.

"I am going to beat that !@#$#% if it takes ten years!"

He finally gets to spring it on Capablanca and still gets beat. Yes, Capablanca was a better player.

I will always admire Marshall for a decade of dedication in making an opening for a singular purpose. However, Marshall made something timeless. Singularity seems to be a common cause for Americans. Morphy? Fischer?

I would love to have my name on some sort of opening. It is kind of like immortality.

He finally gets to spring it on Capablanca and still gets beat. Yes, Capablanca was a better player.>

I don't think it was like that. Marshall did beat Capablanca at Havana 1913. That was quite embarrassing, actually, since it took place in front of the home crowd. From what I heard, Capa insisted on clearing the playing room before resigning.

Just looked it up. This should be the game:

Capablanca vs Marshall, 1913

Kasparov missed that point in his point in his book, but Fischer apparently realized it, varying his opening repetoire in the world championship. (recall his Nimzo-Indian defenses instead of the King's Indian or Grunfeld)

This game is an incredible win for Fischer and tremendous accomplishment. He is hit with a monster novelty but finds his way through move 20, thinking literally like a computer, finding many of the same moves.

I would love to have my name on some sort of opening. It is kind of like immortality.>

Of course, Marshall did not really invent this variation. First time used was in the game between Carl Walbrodt vs. a consultation team of four in 1893, as published in The Chess World and Deutsches Wochenschach.

Having weathered the storm, most players, indeed most grandmasters, would have sighed a sign of relief and sought a draw. In a similiar situation when a dangerous attack failed, Karpov agreed to a draw with Kasparov. But Fischer is different. he realized that regardless of what went on before, he now had the advantage and played a beautiful endgame securing the full point.>

<What is your point? Are you suggesting that instead the variation should bear Walbrodt's name, when it was Frank Marshall who gave the line its creative impetus, thus is known for the latter with far more justification than some other opening variations?>

No, I think that Marshall's pioneering work should cause the variation to be named after him. My point was that he did not invent it or play it first. That has happened to many opening systems in regard to their names. There are some variations that Marshall explored and "invented" that are not named after him.

Having weathered the storm, most players, indeed most grandmasters, would have sighed a sign of relief and sought a draw. In a similiar situation when a dangerous attack failed, Karpov agreed to a draw with Kasparov. But Fischer is different. he realized that regardless of what went on before, he now had the advantage and played a beautiful endgame securing the full point.>

click for larger view

<Hesam7: I checked the position after 16 ... Rxg2 with Fruit 2.1 and here is the result:

17 Ne4 Qb6 18 Qe3 Qxe3+ 19 fxe3 Bg4 20 Rb1 Na5 21 Bd3 f5 22 Nf2 Rxd5 23 Nxg4 fxg4 24 Bf5+ Kd8 25 Be4 Rdd2 26 Bxg2 Rxg2 27 Rf1 Rxc2 28 Rxf7 Rxh2 (eval: -0.71)

<Depth: 18/61>
2.059M nodes
200K nodes/sec>

Now same position with Stockfish 1.9.1 gives the following @ depth 29:

The following game made the rounds, and it was indeed Fischer who rehabilitated it after this crushing defeat: A Dueckstein vs Euwe, 1958.

<howian1: One important point people ignore is that Petrosian out-prepared Fischer. In the first 5 games, Petrosian has the better position in 4, due largely to his superior preparation and Fischer's predictability. Kasparov missed that point in his point in his book, but Fischer apparently realized it, varying his opening repetoire in the world championship. (recall his Nimzo-Indian defenses instead of the King's Indian or Grunfeld)...>

No doubt of it-Petrosian had the initative in the first five games of that match-but it was rather like a Foreman-Ali bout, where Foreman gave his best shot and Ali absorbed or eluded it all, by which time Foreman had blown out.

One point I believe you've overlooked here is that Fischer had often used the Nimzo-Indian in the sixties, so his adoption of it wasn't at all surprising, and had shown some tendencies to vary from what had indeed been a somewhat predictable repertoire in 1970.