Came out of it dude..u r comparing apples with oranges..Fischer who changed the way of playing chess...and was father of Modern chess..

As for Fischer being the "father of modern chess," I think that's an overstatement. Was Fischer really doing anything so different than Bronstein, Botvinnik, Smyslov and Keres did in the 50s? Different than Tal, Geller, Petrosian, Spassky and Larsen in the 60s? I don't think so. Fischer just worked harder, developed a bit more talent and executed more accurately.

Frankly, I don't think Fischer was doing anything very different than anyone who played at AVRO in 1938. Openings come and go with the latest fashion, and certainly there have been a few discoveries here and there in the middle and end games, but I don't think the game has changed all that much since Capablanca, Lasker, Rubinstein, Alekhine and the Hypermoderns tested and refined it in the 20s and 30s, even with the aid of strong computers and tablebase programs. Players today use more options, memorize more lines, analyze more possibilities and often play more accurately. But that's it. I don't think you can point to Fischer and say, "he changed the way chess is played." He didn't. He may, however, have changed the way chess players train and the way chess is perceived in the public. For that, he deserves kudos. But I think it's hard to argue that Fischer's contributions were more significant than those of the Soviets from the 30s to the 60s or more than the Hypermoderns in the 20s and 30s.

However, Fischer's contributions to chess OUTSIDE of chess theory, were perhaps greater than any other single player:

1) He brought a high profile, and higher prizes, to chess

2) He got FIDE to implement a fair world championship qualifying system (which has since been scrapped, unfortunately)

3) I believe his 1992 match was the first high profile match where games would be played in a single session, without adjournments...This would become the wave of the future

4) He invented the Fischer clock, which is now commonly used in most tournaments

So for those kibitzers saying that Kasparov resigned too soon, I disagree. If I can see the win, then I'm sure Gazza and Toppy can see it much, much faster!

1) The ending is lost by Black, as White wins even after he takes Black pawn on d5, leaving his own d-pawns doubled.

1) white king is more actively placed ( fourth rank vs third rank)

2) White has an extra doubled pawn. This serve a useful purpose as white can trade on d5 as he please but white can never take on e4.

3) white has more pawn moves than black. This gains or loses tempi

white winning ideas is as follow:

1) improve his king to fifth rank

2) attack the weak pawns: first tie down black in the defense of e6 pawn. Once black runs out of move and white gains opposition, white king will invade on either the queenside or the kingside.

e)1.Kf7 2.h5 Kf6 3. hxg6 Kxg6 4. Kh4 h5 (any K move allow Kh5 and white wins) 5. g4 hxg4 6. Kxg4 Kf6 (Kh6?? kf4-ke5 win) 7. Kh5 Kf7 8.(Kh6 draw) Kg5 Kg7 9. e5! Kf7 10. Kh6 Kf8 11.Kg6