Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

There is a clue unsolved right now on the Holiday Contest Clues Page!   [Official Contest Rules]
Please see this announcement for some updates.
(If you register a free account you won't see all these ads!)
Boris Spassky vs Robert James Fischer
Spassky - Fischer World Championship Match (1972), Reykjavik ISL, rd 1, Jul-11
Nimzo-Indian Defense: Normal Variation. Gligoric System Bernstein Defense (E56)  ·  1-0


Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 57 times; par: 109 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 55 more Spassky/Fischer games
PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: If you do not want to read posts by a certain member, put them on your ignore list.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.

Boris Spassky vs Robert James Fischer (1972)

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 41 OF 41 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <QueensideCastler> From the diagram above:

1. Kf3 Kd6 2. Be3 a5 3. Ke2 Kc6 4. Kd3 f5 <5. Ke2> and now White walks the king back toward h4. Black will either have to play more pawn moves or allow White's king to g5.

<White can improve his position> so Black needs to show some resource for drawing this. Yes there is the <a8 square is of the opposite-color to the wB> but here White also has the b-pawn. If all the kingside pawns come off, this would be a White win.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <QueensideCastler> and <beatgiant>: Hopefully you can help me understand.

<QueensideCastler> I followed the link and I see the board on the left pane and a game score on he right pane. The game score which follows the actual game until 32...h3 instead of the actual game continuation 32...Ke7. The game score (analysis?) shown continues 33.Kg4 Bg1 34.Kh3 Bxf2 35.Bd2 reaching the following position:

click for larger view

The main line (?) is shown as 35...Ke7 with two alternatives:

(1) [35...a6 36.Kg2 Bxg3 37.Kxg3 e5=]

(2) [35...e5 36.Kg2 Bxg3 37.Kxg3 a6=]

And the main line (?) then continues 36.Kg2 Bxg3 37.Kxg3 which is the same position achieved in the actual game except in his instance White's bishop is on d2 and in he actual game it was still on c1. The main line (?) continues 37...e5 38.a4 Ke6 39.e4 a6 40.b6 g6 41.a5 f5 42.exf5+ gxf5 43.Kh4 Kd7 44.Kg5 Kc8 45.Kxf5 Kb8 46.Kxe5 reaching the following position:

click for larger view

At this point the 7-piece Lomonosov databases indicate that the position is a draw after 46...Ka8. But the analysis continues 46...Kc8 (tablebase draw) 47.Bf4 Kb8 (tablebase draw) 48.Kd6 Kc8 (tablebase draw). Yet at this point the main line (?) shows a 1-0 result.

Looking at alternate line (1) we reach the following position after 37...e5:

click for larger view

And the following position after alternate line (2):

click for larger view

This position is not too different from the position in the actual game after 35.Kxg3. White's bishop is on d2 instead of c1, Black's e-pawn is on e5 instead of e6, Black's a-pawn is on a6 instead of a7, and Black's king is on f8 instead of e7. Are these differences significant in influencing the outcome of the game? I have no idea. Both positions contain 11 pieces to a 7-piece tablebase cannot be used to determine the game's outcome from that position.

At any rate, the analyses shown on the link do not necessarily represent best play by both sides after 29...Bxh2 so they cannot be used to "prove" that Black could still draw after that move.

<beatgiant> I have no idea how you reached the following position based on the information presented via the link:

click for larger view

Was this the result of your own analysis? Or was there an analysis in the link that <QueensideCastler> provided that I wasn't able to find?

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<QueensideCastler> 7-men syzygy will help engine with vital fortress information. Once engine can consult that particular tablebase position, it will immediately evaluate the position as draw. >

I don't mean to insult you but perhaps you don't know how table bases work. If you don't, then perhaps this might help (see, for example, If you do, I apologize.

Tablebases contain a file for each set of combination of pieces; e.g. KBPKP, KQPPKQ, etc. Each of these files contains (or from them the tablebase probing code can derive) the set of all possible moves for each possible starting position for the number of pieces that the file contains.

During the chess engine's search tree expansion, once the chess engines reaches a position containing 6-pieces (in the case of using 6-piece Syzygy tablebases) the table base probing code finds the appropriate file for the number of pieces in the position being analyzed and the position being analyzed. The tablebase probing code returns the outcome from this position; in the case of the Syzygy tablebases this is either 2 (if the side to move is winning), 0 (if the position is a draw), or -2 if the side to move is losing. If the 50-move rule is being enforced it returns either a 1 (if the position would be a win if it wasn't for the 50-move rule, a so-called "cursed win") or a -1 (if the position would be a loss if it wasn't for the 50-move rule, a so-called "blessed loss")/

So, after a 6-piece position is reached in the node (position) in the search tree, the outcome of that position is known by the tablebases and that branch no longer needs to be expanded. But other branches of the search tree that contain nodes that have more than 6 pieces continue to be expanded and evaluated in the usual manner. And whether the chess engine can ever use tablebases for s particular node in a branch of its search tree depends on whether any node in that branch of the search tree contains a position with 6 pieces or less.

So a 7-piece Syzygy tablebases will help identify a position's outcome one ply earlier than 6-piece Syzygy tablebases (or any other 6-piece tablebases), but that's all. It may be significant or it may not, it all depends on he position. And, since all chess engines use heuristics to prune their search tree to retain only the most promising branches (so that they can reach deeper search depths in a reasonable length of time), it's possible that they might miss searching branches whose nodes contain less promising moves but could actually reach positions with 6 pieces or less. Therefore an engine that prunes its search tree aggressively (like Stockfish) is more likely to miss these. The only way I know to guarantee that the engine will reach all the possible game results from a given position is to disable search tree pruning and force the engine to consider all possible moves from a given position. But, since this will cause exponential search tree growth, it's not feasible with current technology to achieve this in a reasonable length of time except in the case where the number of pieces in the starting position being analyzed is close to the number of positions that the tablebases support.

Or you can use a tablebase generator like FinalGen (see which can generate tablebases for positions of more than 6 pieces under certain conditions. I encourage you to download it and try it. We attempted to generate tablebases for the position after 29...Bxh2 but it proved too complex for FinalGen to evaluate.

One problem with FinalGen is that, even if it is able to properly evaluate a position, it might take it a long, long time to do so, and require a lot of disk space. For example, in the last position you posted:

click for larger view

FinalGen estimates after about 5 minutes of running that it will take it around 65 hours (on my admittedly slow computer) and 923+ GB (uncompressed) of disk space. I have neither the patience for the former or the available disk space of the latter. And the last time I tried to use FinalGen it crashed, so I would not be certain that it would ever get to the end from this position.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
<I have no idea how you reached the following position based on the information presented via the link.>

That is the position just after Black's 40th move in the analysis posted there, just before the analysis went off the rails with <41. a5??>

May-29-18  QueensideCastler: <AylerKupp>

You're hopeless. 6-men syzygy accesses that fortress position as +4. 7-men syzygy will undoubtedly eval it as 0.00

I gave up on FingalGen couple of years ago as final outcome is "either or" draw or win. First let FinalGen generate for hours if not days then after generation come up with it's either win or draw.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: The correct evaluation of the <fortress position> is well understood even without tablebases and is not under dispute. Sometimes, we forget that humans, too, are capable of understanding chess.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<QueensideCastler> You're hopeless.>

Perhaps, and maybe even likely. But I don't see how or why you can be so sure that, just because engines using 6-piece Syzygy table bases evaluate the fortress position as [+4.00] (which I think that's what you mean, Syzygy tablebases apparently don't return a value of [ ±4.00], it's the engine which converts the value returned by the Syzygy tablebases to [ ±128 ±<something>]) how you can be so certain that 7-piece tablebases will "undoubtedly" evaluate the position at [0.00]. For example, given how engines/tablebases work, why would a starting position with > 7 pieces, assuming no captures, obtain a result using 7-piece tablebases at all since there will always be > 7 pieces on the board? The best that tablebases of any size do in that situation (which is still useful) is determine whether a particular line involving captures is desirable when going for a win and when it isn't. But since engines typically only look at a small number of possible lines from that position, they don't have the ability to evaluate <with certainty> from that position that the result is a win, draw, or loss. The best you can do is to determine what the <most likely> result will be. If your goal is to determine the result <with certainty> you must either use an engine that allows you to entirely suppress search tree pruning (assuming that you can live with the greatly increased execution time to reach a desired search depth) or look at other approaches.

As far as FinalGen is concerned, yes, it has its limitations. And it's frustrating to have it analyze for hours or days only to get a conclusion like "White wins or draws" which according its author, means that a win is certain after some Black moves from that position but it's a draw after others; i.e. a win by White from that position is not certain. I don't think that's useless information; in fact it means that a White win is not certain, which is probably what you wanted to know in the first place, that the game is not necessarily lost by Black.

And FinalGen is just a tool, useful in some situations and not in others, just like most tools. Have you decided against using chess engines as a tool just because currently they have difficulty coming up with the proper evaluation of fortress positions?

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<beatgiant> That is the position just after Black's 40th move in the analysis posted there,>

Thanks. I'm not sure how I missed that since I went over the line move by move. But, there you are.

And, FWIW, FinalGen estimates that in my computer it would take it about 80 hours and almost 900 GB of (uncompressed) disk space. And, again, I have neither the patience nor the disk space available to let it finish.

<Sometimes, we forget that humans, too, are capable of understanding chess.>

We are, some more than others. But, again FWIW, when I started looking at this position I felt that in order to satisfy the most diehard Fischer fans, the only way to convince them that Fischer was lost after 29...Bxh2 (if indeed that was the case) was to come up with irrefutable evidence. If that were even possible. So I thought (hoped?) that a definitive analysis from FinalGen or a combination of several engines, FinalGen, and Lomonosov tablebases, might do the trick. I was pretty certain that "mere" analysis, even by some of the best players on this site, would be enough. Or, for that matter, from some of the best players in the world. After all, if you've already made up your mind and it's a question of faith, no amount of facts and evidence will convince you otherwise.

Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: You guys are bonkers !

What are you trying to prove ?

lol lol lol

Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime: Bobby Fischer was better than Boris Spassky at this moment in time. Much better.

Bobby Fischer had been the best chess player in the world long before this match.... Soviet Commie influence over FIDE had kept Bobby at bay...

May-30-18  FredGambit: I've never before seen such a fanatical, unshakable determination to say nothing over and over and over again. I'm in awe of <harrylime>.
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <harrylime> For those with an open mind, we're trying to prove or disprove in a conclusive way whether the game was theoretically lost or drawn for Black after 29...Bxh2. But, since you've already made up your mind and are unwilling or incapable of expressing an opinion, it shouldn' be of any interest to you whatsoever.

But you're right about the bonkers part.

Premium Chessgames Member
  morfishine: <FredGambit> On your comment: <I've never before seen such a fanatical, unshakable determination to say nothing over and over and over again. I'm in awe of <harrylime>> LMAO, thats why I have this obnoxious boor on permanent ignore: This way he can really say nothing ROFL
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
<we're trying to prove or disprove in a conclusive way whether the game was theoretically lost or drawn for Black after 29...Bxh2>

In my case, I was only trying to rebut a claim that the draw for Black was <easy>. <If so, then how did Fischer miss it?>

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <beatgiant> I don't remember anyone calling a draw for Black <after> 29...Bxh2 as being easy. Before 29...Bxh2 maybe, but not afterwards. All I've ever said is that what was likely a "simple" draw (to at least a top level GM) before 29...Bxh2 became a difficult draw after 29...Bxh2, and it was so hard that Fischer missed the best continuation and lost.

Besides, whatever is proven or disproven as a result of extensive engine and/or tablebase analysis has to be qualified as being "technical". We should never forget that a chess game is played between two human beings under time constraints and, in this game in particular since it was the first round of a WCC match that had attracted a lot of attention, probably with more pressure on either player than usual. Even if the result after 29...Bxh2 was a theoretical draw for Black, it doesn't mean that Fischer would necessarily find it, as indeed he didn't in this game. Likewise, even if the results after 29...Bxh2 was a theoretical win for White, it doesn't mean that Spassky would necessarily find it either, particularly after best play by Fischer.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
Then I will spell it out for you.

More times than I can count, kibitzers here have claimed to prove a draw with the aid of short and simplistic computer analysis.

In the most recent case, we were shown a long, practically single-branched line containing a horrendous blunder in the middle, ending in a book draw which a computer mis-evaluated, and a firmly stated belief that it would become the analytical main line if only a 7-piece tablebase were added to the engine.

That's the kind of thing I mean by <too easy>.

Jul-12-18  Albion 1959: Forty six years to the day and it is time to revisit the opening game of this historic match. Of course much of the attention has been focused on move 29 Bxh2. Should it be given as ?? or maybe !? or ?!. It certainly livens up the game and avoided what would have been a dull draw. Hindsight is a wonderful thing to have, even more so 46 years later with computers and powerful far-reaching search engines. But back in 1972 things were very different. Fischer obviously miscalculated, maybe he did not carry the analysis further than he should have done? In any event from 30 onwards he was always fighting for a draw and very nearly pulled it off. The analysis all seem to agree that Bxh2 was not in itself the losing move and that Fischer's mistake came later on. Possibly Ke7 on move 30 to centralise the king is an improvement on h5? It is accepted that Fischer's losing move was on move 40 with f4?? instead of Kd5 gaining a tempo by attacking the bishop. However, it needed accurate technique from Spassky to score the win, though he did have the advantage of an adjournment and the use of seconds to find the winning path. I wonder if had to play this ending as an allegro finish, would he still have found the win over the board ? A fascinating endgame study, only made possible by Fischer's refusal to take an easy on draw that was on offer. A trait of Fischer's play (which I admire ) is that he would often take games to their limits !
Sep-02-18  CharlesSullivan: Here begins the first post about the crucial stages of this game.


Black has three moves that can still lead to a draw: 35...Kd6, 35...g6, and 35...a6. Fischer, as was his custom, chose the most direct one.

click for larger view

(Position above after 35...Kd6)


"This is a perfectly reasonable move ... But perhaps 36 a4 was a little slow?" Thus wrote Jonathan Speelman (<Analysing the Endgame> (1981), p.78) as he was about to spend six pages examining analysis produced by Fridrik Olafsson. Olafsson indicated that White can (probably) force a win here with 36.Kg4. Olafsson's claim of a win for 36.Kg4, coming from a high-ranking grandmaster, was extremely influential, and was generally accepted to be true. Timman's 2nd English edition (2003) of <Fischer World Champion!> and <Garry Kasparov on Fischer (2004)> both quoted analysis supporting Olafsson's claim. However, Karsten Müller's <Bobby Fischer> (2009) quoted analysis from Speelman's book demonstrating that 36.Kg4 Ke5! 37.Kh5 Ke4!! will draw. Interestingly, also in 2009, Timman's 3rd English edition finally notices Speelman's contribution from 1981 and concedes that 36.Kg4 does not win by force. (Somewhat oddly, the question mark is still attached to 36.Kg4 in Timman's book.)
Almost as a footnote to this tempest, I will note that after 36.Kg4, there are actually four moves that Black can safely play: 36...Ke5, 36...Kd5, 36...Kc5, and 36...g6.

click for larger view

(Position above after 36.a4)


Black has five moves that can still lead to a draw: 36...Kd5, 36...Kc5, 36...Ke5, 36...a6, and 36...g6. Ken Smith and Ludek Pachman both thought that Black must avoid 36...Kc5 37.Ba3, but 37...Kd5!! draws; for example, 38.Kg4 Ke4 39.Bc5 a6 40.b6 g6, etc.

click for larger view

(Position above after 37.Ba3


Ludek Pachman thought that Black's 37...Ke4 was the losing move. However, we shall see that that is untrue. In fact, Black has four moves that can still lead to a draw: 37...Ke4, 37...e5, 37...a6, and 37...g6.

My next posting will be about Fischer's losing move ...

Sep-03-18  CharlesSullivan: The second post about the crucial stages of this game.

38.Bc5 a6 39.b6 f5(??) (The losing move)

click for larger view

(Position above after 39.b6)

Reshevsky and Robert Byrne both published books which indicate that Black's 29...Bxh2 was the losing move; Pachman and Mednis both wrote books that said Black's 37...Ke4 was the losing move; Gligoric actually thought that Black's 40th move was the loser. However, more recent books (those by Speelman, Kasparov, Timman, and Müller) now point to 39...f5 as the reason for Fischer's defeat.

There are actually three moves that can still lead to a draw: 39...Kf5, 39...e5, and 39...g6.

[1] <39...Kf5>

As far as I know, only Reshevsky even mentions 39...Kf5 as a defensive try, and he wrote that it would be "unavailing." But after 39...Kf5 40.Kf3 e5! (instead of Reshevsky's 40...g5??) Black has a fairly smooth draw by reaching the stalemate position in the corner: 41.e4 Ke6 42.Bf8 g6 43.Bb4 f5 44.Be1 Kd6 45.Bb4+ Kc6 46.a5 fxe4+ 47.Kxe4 Kd7 48.Kxe5 Kc8 49.Kf6 g5 50.Kxg5 Kd8 51.Kf6 Kc8 52.Ke7 Kb8 53.Kd8 Ka8 54.Kc8 (Stalemate) DRAW:

click for larger view

Being able to reach this corner (and stalemate) is a recurring theme in many drawing variations in this endgame.

After 39...Kf5, 40.Kh4 forces Black to find 40...g6! (the only move to draw) when play might continue 41.Kg3 e5 42.Kf3 Ke6 43.Bb4 and now 43...f5, 43...Kd5, 43...Kf7, 43...Kf5, and 43...Kd7 all lead to draws.

[2] <39...e5> and [3] <39...g6>

Gligoric thought he refuted 39...e5 with 40.Kg4 g6 41.Be7 Kxe3 42.Bxf6, but Timman correctly states that 42...Kd4! draws. This position can also be reached by transposition beginning with 39...g6: 40.Kg4 e5 41.Be7 Kxe3 42.Bxf6 Kd4!. The finish might be 43.Kg5 Kc5 44.Bd8 a5 45.Kxg6 e4 46.Kf5 e3 47.Ke6 e2 48.Bh4 Kxb6:

click for larger view

Black will abandon his 3 pawns and White cannot force a queen with the "wrong" bishop.

Pachman thought 39...e5 40.Kg4 g6 41.Kg3 f5 42.Kh4 f4 43.exf4 Kxf4 44.Be7 e4 45.Bg5+ Kf3 46.Bc1 e3 47.Kg5 e2 48.Bd2 wins (after 48...Kf2?? 49.Kxg6), but 48...Ke4!! draws:

click for larger view

An interesting finish would be 49.Kf6 Kd5 50.Ke7 g5 51.Be1 g4 52.Kd7 Ke4 53.Kc7 Kf3 54.Kxb7 g3 55.Bxg3 Kxg3 56.Kxa6 e1=Q 57.b7 DRAW

Botvinnik gave 39...e5 40.Bf8 Kxe3 41.Bxg7 Kd4 42.Bxf6 Kc5 43.Bd8 Kb4 44.Kf3 Kxa4 45.Ke4 Kb5 46.Kd5 and now Prins found 46...a5! when Black has enough counterplay to ensure the draw.

The next posting will show that Black had no salvation at move 40.

Sep-03-18  CharlesSullivan: The third post about the crucial stages of this game.

40. Kh4 f4

Is Black's game irretrievably lost after 40.Kh4? Perhaps Black has a saving resource? As Pachman wrote: "After the game a widely held view was that Black could have saved the game by 40...Kd5. This is incorrect." To support his view, he gave 40...Kd5 41.Bb4! Kc6 42.Ba5 (42.a5 also wins, as Kasparov found) 42...Kc5 43.Kg5 Kc4 44.Kg6 Kd3 45.Kxg7 Kxe3 46.Kf6 f4 47.Kxe6 f3 48.Be1

click for larger view

and White obviously wins.

More difficult to crack is 40...Kd5 41.Bb4! Ke4:

click for larger view

If White tries to protect his e-pawn with 42.Bc5, then 42...Kd5! and White -- to maintain a won game -- must repeat the position with 43.Bb4 Ke4. So the only way forward is 42.Bd2 Kd3 43.Bc1 Kc2 44.Ba3 Kd3 45.Bc5! Kc4:

click for larger view

(Analysis position. What is White's correct 46th move?)

As Jonathan Speelman wrote, "By a very complicated manoeuvre White has lured the Black king to c4 instead of d5 so that a later ...♔c6 in one move is impossible." This variation was worked out by Jeffrey Kastner of the Manhattan Chess Club with later help by Robert Byrne and Bent Larsen. Speelman later used the analysis as part of his chapter on this Spassky-Fischer game.

(Surprisingly, none of these players published a completely convincing conclusion to this variation. Both Byrne and Speelman continued with 46.Bf8 Kd3 47.Bxg7 Kxe3 48.Kg5 Ke4 49.Bc3 Kd5 50.Be1. Byrne continued 50...Kc5 51.Bf2+, but now 51...Kd6, 51...Kc6, or 51...Kd5 (instead of Byrne's 51...Kb4) leads to a draw. Speelman continued 50...a5 51.Bf2 Kd6 52.Kf6 and now 52...Kd7 keeps the draw.)

As far as I know, Kasparov (in 2004) was the first to give a correct 46th move: 46.Bd6. As Karsten Müller noted, "Kasparov ends here." Müller provided the conclusion: 46...Kd5 47.Bf4! e5 48.Bh2 f4 49.exf4 exf4 50.Kg4! (50.Bxf4? Kc5!!=) 50...Kc5 51.Bg1+ Kb4 52.Kxf4 Kxa4 53.Ke5 Kb4 54.Kd6 a5 55.Kc7 a4 56.Kxb7 winning.

There is another winning 46th move: 46.Be7; e.g., 46...Kd3 47.Bg5 e5 48.Kh5 f4 49.exf4 exf4

click for larger view

50.Kg4!! (50.Bxf4 Kc4!!=) 50...Kc4 51.Kxf4 Kc5 52.Bd8 Kd6 53.Kf5 Kd7 54.Bg5 Kc6 55.Be3 Kd6 56.Kg6 wins.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <CharlesSullivan> <But after 39...Kf5 40.Kf3 e5! (instead of Reshevsky's 40...g5??) Black has a fairly smooth draw by reaching the stalemate position in the corner: 41.e4 Ke6 42.Bf8 g6 43.Bb4 f5 44.Be1 Kd6 45.Bb4+ Kc6 46. a5>

click for larger view

White should avoid being forced to make the a5 pawn push as in this line. For example, 45. Bf2 instead of 45. Bb4+, and then White gradually maneuvers his king forward, as in lines I posted above.

Sep-04-18  CharlesSullivan: <beatgiant><White should avoid being forced to make the a5 pawn push ...>
You are correct, Black wants to force White to lock the queenside pawns so that Black's king can reach the stalemate position near the a8-square. As we both noted, once White played 46.a5, Black can reach the stalemate position.
In the variation I gave, 39...Kf5 40.Kf3 e5 41.e4 Ke6 42.Bf8 g6 43.Bb4 f5 44.Be1 Kd6, your move of 45.Bf2

click for larger view

is drawn after the necessary 45...a5! I hesitate to choose White's continuation since White has twelve non-winning moves in this position, but perhaps 46.exf5 gxf5 47.Be1 Kc6 48.Bxa5 Kc5 49.Ke3 Kc6 50.Kd3 f4 51.Kc4 e4 52.Kd4 f3 53.Ke3 Kc5! and I think the draw is clear enough:

click for larger view

If White moves his bishop, he loses the b6-pawn and doesn't have the right bishop to force a queen, and White's king obviously can't play Kxe4 because of ...f2.

A different try for White is to leave the resolution of the kingside pawns for later and play 46.Be1 Kc6 47.Bxa5 Kc5 48.Ke3 Kc6 49.Kd3 Kc5 50.Kc3 fxe4 51.Kd2 g5 52.Ke3 g4 53.Kxe4 Kc6! 54.Kxe5 g3 55.Be1 Kxb6:

click for larger view

This is a draw.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <CharlesSullivan> As I suggested and analyzed in previous kibitzing above, White should not play exf5 or use his bishop to chase the a-pawn. Instead, White's strategy should be to leave the bishop on the f2-c5 diagonal and not touch the pawns, and aim to advance his king using zugzwang. It's a busy day today, but I'll try to post an example in the next few days.
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <CharlesSullivan> I analyzed the plan I outlined above, but concluded that Black is still able to draw.

White can manuever to reach a zugzwang like this:

click for larger view

From here, Black defends with <1...fxe4> 2. Bg1 g5 3. Bc5 g4 4. Bg1 <Kd6>

click for larger view

Now if 5. Kb5 <Kd5> looks like a draw, so White continues to temporize with 5. Be3 Kc6 6. Bc5 g3 7. Bg1 Kd6 8. Be3 g2 9. Bg1.

click for larger view

Now White has finally achieved another zugzwang to advance his king (if 9...Kc6 10. Bc5), but with Black's pawn far advanced now, he has <9...Ke6> to answer 10. Kc5 with <...Kf5> with kingside counterplay. I'm not able to find a White win. Instructive! (Or at least, I learned something.)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Dionysius1: Just for fun, I think I've worked out that the still is from just after 37 ♗a3 I don't think Fischer has played 37...♔e4 yet.

Any confirmation, better ideas?

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 41)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 41 OF 41 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please submit a correction slip and help us eliminate database mistakes!
This game is type: CLASSICAL (Disagree? Please submit a correction slip.)

Featured in the Following Game Collections [what is this?]
Fischer Favorites
by atrifix
Fischer-Spassky World Championship Match 1972
from Fischer vs The Russians by wanabe2000
from Great masters losing by WhiteRook48
zumakal blunders archivadas4
by zumakal
ianremsen's favorite games
by ianremsen
Boris Spassky (1937-)
from Player of the day: notable game IV by nikolaas
Game #1
from The Fischer-Spassky Reykjavik 1972 match by dac1990
Game 60
from How to Beat Bobby Fischer (Mednis) by Qindarka
Game 1
from Spassky-Fischer Match 1972 by FischerSpasskyGuy
Fischer 's 27...Bxh2? drops a Bishop for two Pawns
from -ER Fischer by fredthebear
Games with pictures
by ChessDude33
Art on the board
by 5nizza
jungol's favorite games
by jungol
Bishop vs Pawns
from Endgames World champions - part three by Alenrama
from Boris Spassky's 400 Selected Games by JoseTigranTalFischer
Fischer allows his bishop to be trapped
from Interesting games by Fischer by KFitzgerald
Game 45
from Keres, Nei - 4 x 25 by Chessdreamer
Bishop vs Pawns
from Instructive Endgames by Rio Mike
Bobby Fischer's Path To World Champion
by foxmt
Game 102
from On My Great Predecessors 4 (Kasparov) by Qindarka
plus 76 more collections (not shown)

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2019, Chessgames Services LLC