No, he just got a bit lucky. He played a 19th century opening in true 19th century style (moves like 9. Nc3, instead of 9. c3 like most would play now), but it really shouldn't have worked. Fischer just got a bit distracted at the end and lost his way with all the heavy artillery flying around the open center. A lucky escape for Spassky.

i guess he got his revenge in 72

zanshin: Rybka 3 analysis suggests Fischer was winning until move 26:

click for larger view

[-0.26] d=19 26...b6 27.a4 Ba3 28.a5 Qd8 29.Qxd8 Rxd8 30.axb6 axb6 31.Rc4 Rg3 32.Kf1 Bb2 33.Ne5 Rd1 34.Ke2 Rd2 35.Kf1 (0:06.30) 52831kN

<26...Rf8?> blocks an escape square for the Bishop allowing it to be trapped after <27.Re5>. At least that's my interpretation.

click for larger view

[+2.85] d=17 27.Re5 Rd8 28.Qe4 Qg6 (0:01.55) 16057kN

Even with Rybka, I find this game hard to understand.

Maybe 'winning' is too strong - how about slight advantage?

or did the <King's Gambit> bust Fischer?

But with that out of the picture there is no way to argue otherwise.

maxi: Fischer annotates this game in My 60 Memorable Games. He says that he had an advantage until move 23...g4, to which he gives a question mark. Then Spassky played 24.f2 and Bobby answered with 24...e7, after which he makes the comment, "Threatening ...h4". I assume this threat and the clearing of the path for the c8 Rook to go to g8 (and take part on the attack on the White King: <I thought Black could whip up an attack along the g-file>, writes Bobby) were the reasons for Bobby's 24...e7; at least he does not give any other in the book. On the other hand, this move leaves the Bishop in a square open to attack; as a matter of fact Bobby lost this Bishop (and thus the game) in just a few moves. Is 24...e7 a good move?

It turns out that it is an excellent move, especially in the line followed in the game. Its strength comes from the possibility of playing the Bishop to f6 and having it act on the crucial a1-h8 diagonal. After 24...e7, 25.e4, Bobby played 25...g5, and he tells us he should have taken a draw by repetition starting with 25...d1+. But there is nothing wrong with 25...g5, and it holds the small advantage Black has, as we shall soon see. The game followed 26.d4 f8, and it is now, after the awful 26...f8, that the game is lost. Instead, after 26...b6, for example, Black is fine, and if 27.e5? f6!. The real difficulty with the move 26...f8 is in the line 26...f8, 27.e5 f6 28.d6 attacking hanging Rook in f8. Deprived of the tactical possibility of pinning the White Rook in e5, Black is left defenseless and loses immediately as in the game.

An embarrassing example of Fischer's lack of objectivity around that time. The King's Gambit does not lose by force, as Fischer himself demonstrated by playing it three times in his career, and winning all three.

I think Bobby meant the KG with Nf3 was busted. Didn't he play the Bc4 variation in those 3 games?. In the 1964 simultaneous tour, he did play the Nf3 variations and a whole lot of Evans Gambits, too.

White: 46%
Draw: 13.7%
Black: 40.2%