True, although he also says that objectively the more conventional 13.Bxc4 should be the better move... but giving up the DSB instead of the LSB put Gligoric in an unfamiliar situation, to which he didn't respond so well. As Kasparov points out, the "normal" Qa5 isn't very effective here, since with the bishop still on b3 the black queen doesn't really attack anything from that square. Instead, <Qb6> on move 14 or 15 was more in the spirit of the position - taking advantage of the unusual placement of the white queen on e3 to gain time by the threat e5; e.g., 14...Qb6 15.Qd2 Qc5, with the idea of pushing forward the Q-side pawns next.

Kasparov states, "Bronstein gives the move two !!'s, ... but I think the move is just bad." Continuing: Question - "so this is a classic example where everybody's assessment of the move was based on the result of the game?" Kasparov, "yes, yes."

I also didn't see Bobby's 'powerful attack', until finding the obvious 19 Nxe5! He just thinks a little differently than me. Bobby is teaching me thematic play and precision.

All this aside, Fischer had a lovely way of making the dragon seem like suicide.

Little Chest Partner: <Fischer missed the winning 23. Rxh5!!

You can find the analysis at the CCC
Forum.>

The link doesn´t work anymore so I´ll post some analysis here:

1: Robert James Fischer - Svetozar Gligoric, Bled ct 1959

click for larger view

23.Rxh5 gxh5 24.Qxh5 d5 25.exd5 exd5 26.Nxd5 Rxd5 27.Rxd5 Be6 28.Rd3 a5 29.c3 Bxb3 30.axb3 Qxb3 31.g6 fxg6 32.Qxg6 Rf8 33.Rd7 Rf7 34.Rd8+ Rf8 35.Rxf8+ Kxf8 36.Qf5+ Ke7 37.Qc5+ Ke6 38.Qxa5 Qd1+ 39.Nc1 Qd5 40.Qxd5+ Kxd5 41.Kc2 Ke4 42.Nd3 Kf5 (1.60) Depth: 20/60 00:25:21 933mN

Resulting in this position:

click for larger view

Rxh5 is RobboLitto´s preferred move since depth 14 or so, and each new ply the White edge was, basically, increasing. The 2nd best for White was Rd2, still according to the engine.

And why, exactly, is this such a big deal, considering that Fischer plays the move just two turns later? With the same result??

The link says the user has removed the video. Maybe my computer is messing up, though. In any case, I would have played Qd3. Are the moves so different?

Fischer vs C Munoz, 1960

Instead of 22…a5? Black should play in this line 22…Bc6! Followed by 0-0 and he seems to stand very well; another option which looks good for Black a few moves earlier is 17...b4 (18.Na4 Qa5). Btw, Fischer actually ran into (the beginning of) this plan a year later in Fischer vs L Marini, 1960, but there instead of following with 16...b5, Marini immediately went wrong with the h5 & Bh6 idea, which was indeed refuted by 18.e5!

Because the next moves up to 26.Rxh5 aren’t forced – instead of the suicidal 23…Bxc3? which parts with the main defender of the black king, Gligoric could have defended much better; best is probably <23…Bb5!> To break up the linkage of the knights at c3 and e2, which cements together White’s position, and exchange queens. For example (to quote Kasparov’s analysis, which builds on Hubner’s): 24.Nxb5 (24.Qxd6 Qxd6 25.Rxd6 Bxc3 26.Nxc3 Nxf4) 24...Qxb5 25.Qxb5 (25.c4? Rxc4 26.f5 Qe5 27.f6 Rxe4 28.Nc3 Re3) 25...Rxb5 26.Rxd6 (better might be 26.c3! Rd8 27.Kc2 Rc5 28.Rdf1 and White retains some initiative thanks to the greater potential of his bishop) Rb4 27.c4 b5 28.cxb5 Rxe4 29.Nc3 Rb4 and Black is close to equality.

In M60MG, Fischer talks about the RxN sac on the h file in dragon sicilians, and says "I've made this sacrifice so many times, I should take out a patent on it".

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.