|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-12-15
 | | AylerKupp: Alternatives to the moves played (part 1 of 4)
Several questions have been raised whether Fischer or Spassky could have won with different moves than the moves played in the game. A.31...Ne3:
<RookFile> If memory serves, 31...Ne3 and Spassky may well have resigned. <Peligroso Patzer> In their analysis of 31...Ne3 (as a better winning try in lieu of Fischer’s actual 31....Rc8), Euwe and Timman analyze 32.Rfe1 f3 33.Rf2 Ng4[?] missing the much stronger 33...Ng2!, which wins outright. But in this line White can improve with 32.Rb1. <Billy Ray Valentine> According to Gligoric, Black's 31st move was a mistake (?), and could have done better with: 30...Kg6, 31...Ne3 B.43...Rxe8
<wwall> Fine says that 43...Rxe8 (instead of 43...Kf5) 44.Rxe8 Kf5 45.Rc8 Ke4 46.Rb3 and Black can probably manage to draw. But 46...Rc1+ 47.Kg2 Kxf4 48.Rb4 Rc2+ 49.Kf1 Rc1+ 50.Ke2 Kg3 51.Rcxc4 Rxc4 52.Rxc4 Kxh4 53.Rc6 f5 54.Rxb6 Kg3 55.a5 wins for White. Does Black have an improvement to draw in this variation? Timman and Euwe give 48...Nd2! 49.Rf6+ Ke5 "and the king escapes", but miss 49.Ne2+ Kf5 50.Nd4+ where white wins black's rook at c2. C.44...Kxf4
<LarryJordan> Fischer's 44...Kxf4(?) loses.44...Kg6 would have drawn. D.47.Rd3+:
<Benzol> Could Spassky have won at move 47 with 47.Rd3+ instead of 47.Ree4? <LarryJordan> Gligoric/Wade in "The World Chess Championship" (RHM Press, 1972) point out that Spassky's 47.Ree4 was an error.47.Rd3+! Kf4 48.Ng3 wins. <Aspirador> 47.Rd3+ Kf4 48.Ng3 does not win for white: Black has a draw here by simply checking: 48...Rc1+ 49.Kf2 Rc2+ 50.Ke1 Rc1+ 51.Ke2 Rc2+ 52.Kd1 Rd2+! <LarryJordan> White wins with: 53.Rxd2 Nxd2 54.Ne2+ Kf5 55.Nd4+ K any 56.Kxd2. So let's see how Komodo 8 and Stockfish 6 evaluate these possibilities. |
|
Mar-12-15
| | AylerKupp: Alternatives to the moves played (part 2 of 4)
A. After 31...Ne3:
click for larger viewKomodo: [-3.36], d=26: 32.Rg1 Rxd6 33.Nxd6 Bxd6 34.Rb1 Ra8 35.gxf4 Bxf4 36.Rb3 Nf5 37.Rxb6 Rxa4 38.Rb1 Ne3 39.Kg1 Ra3 40.Kh1 h5 41.Rd2 Ng4 42.Re2 Kg6 43.Rb6+ f6 44.Rb1 Rh3 45.Rb3 Rxh2+ 46.Rxh2 Bxh2 47.c4 Bd6 48.Rb5 Nf2+ 49.Kg2 Nd3 50.Kf3 h4 51.Ke4 Nc5+ 52.Kd5 Stockfish: [-4.24], d=34: 32.Rg1 Bxd6 33.Nxd6 Rxd6 34.gxf4 Re6 35.fxg5 h5 36.Rb1 Rc8 37.Rb3 Nd5 38.Rd2 Nc3 39.Rd4 Ne2 40.Rd2 Rc4 41.Ra3 Nf4 42.Kg1 Re5 43.Rb3 Rxa4 44.g6 Rg5+ 45.Rg3 Rxg6 46.Rxg6+ Nxg6 47.c3 Ra1+ 48.Kf2 Rc1 49.Rb2 Ne5 50.Rxb6 Rxc3 So, yes, it looks like Fischer should have won after 31...Ne3. Odd that he didn't see the potential of the octopus knight which should have been obvious even if he had been in time trouble (I don't know if he was or not, but I doubt it; he was usually a fast player). B. After 43...Rxe8:
click for larger viewKomodo: [0.00], d=24: 44.Rxd8 Kf5 45.Rc6 Rc1+ 46.Kf2 Rc2+ 47.Kg3 Rc3+ 48.Kh2 Rc2+ 49.Kg1 Stockfish: [0.00], d=40: 44.Rxd8 Rc1+ 45.Kh2 Rc2+ 46.Kg1 If instead 45.Kg2 Rc2+ 46.Kf1 (with the idea that if 46...Rc1+, 47.Re1) then 46...Nd2+ 47.Ke1 Nf3+ 48.Kd1 Ra2 49.Rdd6 Kf5 50.Rxf6+ Ke4 51.Rf8 Ra1+ 52.Kc2 Nxh4 53.f5 Nxf5 54.Re6+ Kd5 55.Rxb6 Nd4+ 56.Kb2 Rxa4 57.Rh8 Kc4 58.Rxh5 Rb4+ 59.Rxb4+ Kxb4 (Stockfish, [0.00], d=35). And even after 46...Rc1+ 47.Re1, Stockfish gives [0.00], d=36 after 47...Rc3 48.Re4 Rc2 49.Re2 Rc3 50.Re4. So it looks like after the exchange sacrifice 43...Rxe8 Black gets sufficient counterplay for a draw. |
|
Mar-12-15
| | AylerKupp: C.1. After 44...Kxf4:
click for larger viewBoth Komodo (d=28) and Stockfish (d=34) evaluate White's best line at [0.00] after 45.Rd4+ Kg3 46.Nf5+ Kf3 47.Ree4 Rc1+ 48.Kh2 Rc2+ 49.Kg1, resulting in a draw by repetition. So it doesn't look like 44....Kxf4 loses. In spite of being 2 pawns up Black has no alternative to the draw by repetition since at d=32 Stockfish evaluates both 47...Rg2+ and 47...Rc3 as losing: a. [+2.77]: 47...Rg2+ 48.Kh1 Rc2 49.Rf4+ Ke2 50.Ng3+ Ke3 51.Rxc4 Rxc4 52.Rxc4 f5 53.Nxf5+ Kf3 54.Rc3+ Ke4 55.Ng3+ Kd5 56.Kg2 Rh7 57.Rb3 Kc6 58.Rb5 Ra7 59.Nxh5 Rxa4 60.Rb1 b5 61.Kg3 Kc5 62.Nf4 Kc4 63.h5 Ra7 64.Kxg4 b4 65.h6 Rh7 66.Kg5 b3 67.Kg6 Rb7 68.h7 Rb8 69.Kf5 b2 b. [+3.40]: 47...Rc3 48.Rf4+ Ke2 49.Rf2+ Ke1 50.Re4+ Kd1 51.Rxc4 Rxc4 52.Ne3+ Kc1 53.Nxc4 Rc8 54.Nxb6 Rc6 55.Nd7 Ra6 56.Nxf6 Ra5 57.Kg2 Kb1 58.Ne4 Kc1 59.Ra2 Kb1 60.Nc3+ Kc1 61.Ne2+ Kd1 62.Nf4 Kc1 63.Nd3+ Kd1 64.Kg3 Rf5 65.Nf2+ Kc1 66.a5 Kb1 67.Ra4 Kc2 Komodo at d=28 has similar evaluations although not quite as pessimistic for Black, [+2.10] after 47...Rg2+ and [+2.57] after 47...Rc3. But still likely losing. C.2. If instead 44...Kg6:
click for larger viewKomodo: [0.00], d=30: 45.f5+ Kh6 46.Rxf6+ Kxg7 47.Rg6+ Kf7 48.Rd7+ Ke8 49.Ra7 Rd2 50.Re6+ Kf8 51.Ra8+ Kg7 52.Rg6+ Kf7 53.Rxh8 Ne5 54.Rh7+ Kf8 55.Rf6+ Kg8 56.Rxh5 Nf3+ 57.Kf1 Nh2+ 58.Kg1 Nf3+ Stockfish: [0.00], d=38: 45.f5+ Kh6 46.Rxf6+ Kxg7 47.Rg6+ Kf7 48.Rd7+ Ke8 49.Rb7 Rd2 50.Re6+ Kf8 51.Rb8+ Kg7 52.Rg6+ Kf7 53.Rxh8 Ne5 54.Rh7+ Kf8 55.Rxb6 Nf3+ 56.Kf1 Nh2+ 57.Ke1 Nf3+ 58.Kf1 And both Komodo (d=30) and Stockfish (d=38) evaluate 45.Rd7 Rc1+ 46.Kg2 Rc2+ 47.Kg1 at [0.00] and a draw by repetition. So 44...Kg6 seems to lead to a draw also. |
|
Mar-12-15
| | AylerKupp: Alternatives to the moves played (part 4 of 4)
D. After 47.Rd3+:
click for larger viewKomodo: [0.00], d=28: 47...Kf4 48.Ng3 Rc1+ 49.Kh2 Rc2+ 50.Kg1 Stockfish: [0.00], d=38: 47...Kf4 48.Ng3 Rc1+ 49.Kf2 Rc2+ 50.Kg1. If White tries to avoid the draw by 50.Re2, then 50...Rxe2+ 51.Nxe2+ Ke5 52.Nc3 Ke6 53.Nd5 Nb2 54.Nf4+ Ke5 55.Ng6+ Kf5 56.Rd2 Kxg6 57.Rxb2 Ra8 (two connected passed pawns up should be a win) 58.Rb4 Ra5 59.Ke3 Re5+ 60.Kf2 Re6 61.Kg3 Re3+ 62.Kf4 Rf3+ 63.Ke4 Ra3 64.Kf4 Rc3 65.Ke4 Rc2 66.Kf4 Rf2+ 67.Ke4 Re2+ 68.Kf4 Rh2 69.Rxb6 Rxh4 70.a5 Rh3 71.Ra6 Ra3 72.Ra8 Ra4+ 73.Kg3 Kf5 74.a6 Ra3+ 75.Kf2 Kf4 (Stockfish, [-2.68], d=37) and Black comes out on top. So Gligoric and Wade were wrong, White does not win after 47.Rd3+. |
|
Mar-12-15
 | | diceman: Thanks for that Ayler.
<So, yes, it looks like Fischer should have won after 31...Ne3. Odd that he didn't see the potential of the octopus knight which should have been obvious even if he had been in time trouble (I don't know if he was or not, but I doubt it; he was usually a fast player).> I remember there was a site that had the clock times listed for each move of the match. ...but don't remember where or when I saw it.
...other than "years ago." |
|
Mar-12-15
| | AylerKupp: <diceman> Some time ago I stopped referring to things that happend "years ago" and started to refer to things that happened "decades ago". Sigh ... |
|
Mar-12-15
 | | perfidious: <AylerKupp> So it has gone with me also in recent years.... |
|
| Mar-14-15 | | Howard: Aylerkupp, I don't know what I'd do without you. Thanks very, very much ! By the way, what about the 17th game of Fischer-Spassky? The adjourned position looked like a possible win for Spassky until he stumbled into a three-fold repetition. What do your engines say about that game ?! |
|
| Jun-18-15 | | Howard: Someday, I have to figure out how Fischer drew this game without ever moving his king rook ! |
|
| Jun-18-15 | | Petrosianic: Drew it? He nearly won it. |
|
| Dec-26-15 | | CygnusX1: I was thinking of posting the Fischer v Spassky Game 7 Position after Move 46 at the Online Chess Club with the caption 'White To move and win' based on Wade's analysis given in 'The World Chess Championship'. However, on checking the analysis after 47.Rd3+, I was not convinced. The critical variation appears to be 47.Rd3+ Kf4 48.Ng3 Rc1+ 49.Kf2 Rc2+ 50.Ke1 Rc1+ 51.Ke2 Rc2+ 52.Kd1 and here Wade gives 52...Nb2+ 53.Kxc2 Nxd3 54.Ne2+ Kf5 55.Nd4+ and 56.Kxd3. However, instead of playing 52...Nb2+, it seems that black can get the advantage by playing 52...Rd2+ 53.Rxd2 Kxg3! So, it seems that it would be best for white to allow black to keep checking with the rook (i.e allow the perpetual). Opinions about this game and position differ widely:
Gligoric gives 47.R6e4! However, just before this move, he wrote: "46...Kf3 Hoping a little for 47.Rd3+ Kf4 gaining a vital tempo by attacking the knight." So, Gligoric seems to think that 47.Rd3+ is inferior to 47.R6e4. Yet, after 47.Rd3+ Kf4, white plays 48.Ng3 and should definitely draw. Wade in 'The World Chess Championship' gives 47.R6e4?? (because he thinks that White can win by 47.Rd3+) Edmonds & Eidinow in 'Bobby Fischer Goes To War', Page 179: "Spassky...ended up clinging to an embattled draw..." Wade in 'The Games of Robert J.Fischer', Second Edition just gives 47.R6e4 C.H.O'D.Alexander just gives 47.R6e4
D.N.L.Levy in 'How Fischer Plays Chess', Page 157: "Spassky...should have lost at several different points in the game...but the game was drawn after enormous complications." P.S. I had an interesting idea for Fischer v Spassky Game 1: Instead of playing 29...Bxh2? could Fischer have played 29...h5 possibly threatening 30...Bxh2(?) |
|
| Sep-10-16 | | thegoodanarchist: What a great game! Amazing tactics by both players. |
|
Jun-03-18
 | | Sally Simpson: Continuing CygnusX1's post and what different authors say about this game. Purdy:
43....Kf5
click for larger viewAn adventurous way to force a draw, the fruit of adjournment analysis. Evans and Smith on page 91 of their 'Move by Move' book say Spassky was heartened after swindling a draw in Game 7. Game 7 saw Spassky, now trailing in the match 3½ - 2½ also having the same chair as Fischer. https://img.webme.com/pic/k/kunstun... Before then Spassky sat on a 'normal' chair.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... I'm thinking the Russians examined the wrong chair when they called in the experts between games 17 and 18. |
|
| Jun-03-18 | | Granny O Doul: I notice that in AylerKupp's Mar-12-15 analysis of 31...Ne3, White's knight has wandered from b7 (whence it attacks Black's rook) to d6 (whence it attacks nothing and is actually hanging). This very probably improves Black's prospects compared to the position reached in the game. |
|
Jun-03-18
 | | harrylime: Am I the only one on the internet who respects these great players so much that I refuse to use any silicon or computers when trying to analyse the various positions ?? |
|
| Jun-04-18 | | alphamaster: I full trust the analysis of these 2 great players plus the whole Soviet team so after the adjournment the game was a draw. Earlier Fischer had a won position. Fischer for this game: "I played like a fish!" |
|
Jun-04-18
| | AylerKupp: <<harrylime> Am I the only one on the internet who respects these great players so much that I refuse to use any silicon or computers when trying to analyze the various positions ??> Very likely not given the number of people who look at chess using the Internet. But unless you think it’s disrespectful to do <any> analysis of a game after it ends I fail to see how using computers to analyze the various positions is any different than using a chessboard after the game, particularly without any time constraints or pressure. The one thing that we all need to remember is that chess is a game played between two players under time constraints. Add to that the not inconsiderable pressure of playing for the WCC title and the money that went to the winner. Under those conditions It is normal and expected for two players to make mistakes and commit inaccuracies during the game, and typically more than one. And the player that makes the least of these (or at least the next to last one, as the saying goes) is the one most likely to win the game. So analyzing games played by the top players, seeing what they did right and what they did wrong (and there will be a lot more of the former than the latter at this level of play), and trying to understand why the moves they played were either correct or incorrect, is the best way to learn and improve your game. I don’t think that it shows any disrespect to do that. Still, if you think that after a game is played the only thing that we should do in order not to show any disrespect is wonder about the moves without applying any thought to them, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Of course, it could simply be that you don’t know how to use computers to analyze a position and don’t want to bother to learn how to do it, so you’re left with criticizing those who do use them as a way to justify your opinion. Then again, I don’t recall you ever posting any analysis about a game on your own (I may be wrong), so it might be that you don’t know how to analyze positions either. But all that’s really important is that you enjoy the game, not that you understand it. |
|
Jun-04-18
| | AylerKupp: <<alphamaster> I full trust the analysis of these 2 great players plus the whole Soviet team so after the adjournment the game was a draw.> Great, I’m glad that you are so certain. Just let me point out that during adjournment the Soviet team was also operating under a time constraint although a relaxed one compared to the time constraint in the actual game. And that current chess engines, if you use them properly and give them enough time, are better at analyzing complex positions than both players and the entire Soviet Team put together. So the results that they come up with, after proper review, are likely to be more correct. Assuming, of course, that that’s important. <Earlier Fischer had a won position> Please indicate at what point Fischer had a won position and why do you think that’s the case. You may consult Fischer, Spassky, or the whole Soviet team to give you their opinion if you so choose. <Fischer for this game: “I played like a fish!”> After 29...Bxh2 I couldn’t agree more. |
|
Jun-04-18
 | | beatgiant: <AylerKupp>
He said <this game>. 29...Bxh2 was the other game. |
|
| Jul-26-18 | | Allanur: Chess.com's maximum analysis on the game. White - Black:
Excellent: 40 - 41
Good: 8 - 6
Inaccuracy: 1 - 1
Best move %: 65% - 64.1%
CAPS* : 97.17 - 97.63
Average difference: 0.11 - 0.08
(* CAPS = computer aggregated precision score)
The analysis seems quite contradictive after an indepth insight. Here are my observations from the analysis: After 11th move of white the score was -0.74.
After 13th move of black, the score was 1.75. Fischer peaked at 20.g6: The difference was -2.22 Fischer had the lead till his 37th move after which the score was -0.37. This score is a draw. Then came Spassky's inaccuracy: Chess.com CPU says (Stockfish 8) 40.Ne8+ was an inaccuracy by Spassky and it says the better move was 40.Nf5+ instead. After this inaccuracy analysis says the score is -0.73 but then Fischer's move 40.Kg6 is marked as the best move and the score declined to -0.44. Then came Fischer's inaccuracy. After 43.Kg1 the computer says the score is -0.67, at that moment came Fisher's inaccuracy: Kf5. Computer suggests (43... Rxe8 44. Rxe8 Ad2 45. Şf2 Af3+ 46. Re2 Rc4 47. Rxf3 gxf3 48. Şxf3) instead and says the score would be still -0.67. The highest difference Spassky acquired during this game is +0.29 and it was after Fischer's 1.c5. The highest difference Fischer acquired during this game is -2.22 which came after Fischer's 20.g6. CPu says after 21.Qf4 the difference is -2.31 but I do not take it into account for two reasons: 1) It was Fischer to move 2) Computer reduced the difference even though Fischer's reply to it is marked as best. Fischer acquired -0.73 after 10th move and maintained it or higher difference till 35th move. At times it reached -2.22. The difference has been over -1 for 12 moves (between move 13 and 25). Yet even after Fischer's devastating and consistent dominance during the game the CAPS (computer aggreagted precision score) score and best move score of the two are extremely close which is something I find very self-contradictive. At least, the average difference should not be that close. |
|
| Sep-12-18 | | CharlesSullivan: The complexity of this game has been underappreciated.
Spassky's 12.Bh4 started him on the road to a lost game. He should have played 12.Bxf6 with approximately equal chances.
Spassky would have had better chances with 18.Qf4 Rxc8 19.Qxh4, although after 19...Qa4 20.Qg3 g6 21.Rad1 Qc4 <-2.01, depth=49>, Black has a very good position.
Fischer had a strong alternative to 21...Bg5; perhaps better was 21...Kg7 <-3.27, depth=43> as Timman and Purdy suggested.
As Tal pointed out, 24...Ne5 <-3.81, depth=42> is probably better than Fischer's 24...g5.
Fischer makes his first serious mistake with 25...Qb4. He still had a winning game after 25...Rg8 <-2.74, depth=50> 26.Nc3 Ne5 27.Qe4 Qc7:
click for larger view
One variation is 28.Nb5 Qc4 29.Qxc4 Nxc4 30.c3 Rd3 31.Rd1 <-3.16> Rxd1 32.Rxd1 Kg7 33.Kg2 Ra8 34.Ra1 b6 35.N3d4 Kg6 36.gxf4 Bxf4 37.Ne2 Be5 38.Ned4 g4 <-4.05> 39.Kg1 Kg5 40.Ne2 h5 41.Nbd4 f5, with a winning position:
click for larger view
Spassky then made two weak moves: 26.Qxb4+ and 27.Re2. Better would have been 26.Na5 <-0.94, depth=50> and 27.gxf4 <-1.13, depth=50>.
Fischer immediately gave away the advantage with 27...Kg7. As Gligoric indicated, 27...Nc6 <-1.75, depth=59> is much better, but the win is many moves away.
Spassky then played the wrong knight to d6 with 30.Ncd6. Had he played 30.Nbd6 <-1.26, depth=50>, White's game could be saved.
Fischer missed both 31...Ra8 32.Nxc5 bxc5 <-2.57, depth=52> and Tal's 31...Ne3. As <Peligroso Patzer> pointed out in 2009, after 31...Ne3 32.Rfe1 f3 33.Rf2, Black has the crushing 33...Ng2 (missed by Timman):
click for larger view
White has no way to escape; for example: 34.Rff1 Nxe1 35.Nxd8 Rxd8 36.Rxe1 g4 <-9.20, depth=43>:
click for larger view
and White can do nothing but wait for the end.
For the remainder of the game, neither side had any measurable advantage. |
|
| Sep-13-18 | | Howard: Keep it coming, Mr. Sullivan!
One strange thing about this encounter, by the way, was that Black never touched his king rook! |
|
Sep-13-18
| | harrylime: The SOVIETS wanted Bobby bad back then ! They knew more about Bobby's games than Bobby did. They lost over the board and Bobby won over the board. Endgame. lol lol |
|
| Mar-06-22 | | Nainais Spider: Was 17. Nxc8 a missed opportunity to capture the pawn on f5?! Having 2 knights on the b file at move 19. Nxb5 when the black King is on the other side of the board. |
|
| Jun-20-22 | | CapablancaDisciple: The times plus a few comments for this game from a website called crackteam.org: <<Game 7, July 25th, 1972Spassky Fischer
White Black
1. e4 (0:00) (ar) (0:05)
1. ... c5 (0:06)
2. Nf3 (0:01) d6 (0:06)
3. d4 (0:01) cxd4 (0:06)
4. Nxd4 (0:01) Nf6 (0:06)
5. Nc3 (0:02) a6 (0:06)
6. Bg5 (0:04) e6 (0:06)
7. f4 (0:05) Qb6 (0:07)
8. Qd2 (0:07) Qxb2 (0:07)
9. Nb3 (0:08) Qa3 (0:10)
10. Bd3 (0:12) Be7 (0:19)
11. 0-0 (0:20) h6 (0:28)
12. Bh4 (0:55) Nxe4 (0:37)
13. Nxe4 (1:03) Bxh4 (0:37)
14. f5 (1:08) exf5 (0:43)
15. Bb5+ (1:15) axb5 (0:50)
16. Nxd6+ (1:16) Kf8 (0:50)
17. Nxc8 (1:17) Nc6 (0:53)
18. Nd6 (1:39) Rd8 (0:57)
19. Nxb5 (1:39) Qe7 (1:01)
20. Qf4 (1:43) g6 (1:02)
21. a4 (1:45) Bg5 (1:07)
22. Qc4 (1:46) Be3+ (1:13)
23. Kh1 (1:46) f4 (1:13)
24. g3 (1:58) g5 (1:18)
25. Rae1 (1:59) Qb4 (1:24)
26. Qxb4+ (1:59) Nxb4 (1:24)
27. Re2 (2:00) Kg7 (1:25)
28. Na5 (2:02) b6 (1:32)
29. Nc4 (2:04) Nd5 (1:38)
30. Ncd6 (2:05) Bc5 (1:43)
31. Nb7 (2:09) Rc8 (1:44)
32. c4 (2:17) Ne3 (1:48)
33. Rf3 (2:18) Nxc4 (1:49)
34. gxf4 (2:18) g4 (1:50)
35. Rd3 (2:21) h5 (1:53)
36. h3 (2:21) Na5 (1:57)
37. N7d6 (2:22) Bxd6 (2:00)
38. Nxd6 (2:22) Rc1+ (2:01)
39. Kg2 (2:22) Nc4 (2:02)
40. Ne8+ (2:26) Kg6 (2:02)
41. h4 (s)(3:09) (ar) (2:19)
41. ... f6 (2:21)
42. Re6 (3:10) Rc2+ (2:32)
43. Kg1 (3:10) Kf5 (2:34)
44. Ng7+ (3:10) Kxf4 (2:35)
45. Rd4+ (3:11) Kg3 (2:36)
46. Nf5+ (3:11) Kf3 (2:37)
47. Ree4 (3:11) Rc1+ (2:50)
48. Kh2 (3:11) Rc2+ (2:50)
49. Kg1 (3:11) 1/2-1/2
(ar) indicates the player's arrival, if late.
(s) indicates a sealed move.
On this day, Spassky got a swivel chair identical to Fischer’s. Fischer arrived late for both the game and for the adjournment. The Sealed Move:
In the days of adjournments, the arbiter would, at the correct time, inform the player on the move that his next move is to be a sealed move. This means that, after due reflection, instead of making his move on the board, the player writes his move in private and puts it into the arbiter’s envelope, and seals it. The arbiter records the clock times and the position, typically on the outside of the envelope, for the game’s later resumption. The arbiter then impounds this envelope, maintaining custody until the game is resumed. When the game is resumed, the arbiter prepares the clocks and board, opens the envelope, plays the sealed move, and then presses that player’s clock to start the new session of play. When does the arbiter prompt a player to make the sealed move? At the end of the playing session. In this case, when both players have completed at least 40 moves, AND 5 total hours have accumulated on the player’s clocks. If both players have completed 40 moves, and 5 hours have not yet accumulated, then the player to move can control the situation, using it to his advantage. If that player wants to seal his next move, he can decide on it and then just wait until the arbiter prompts him to do it. Actually, if the player knows his next move and does not want to wait, he can ask the arbiter for the envelope, seal his move, and the arbiter will deduct time off his clock to complete the necessary 5 total elapsed hours. This extra elapsed time is seen on the clock when the game is resumed. Instead, if the player wants his opponent to seal the move, he can decide on his own move and wait until just before the 5 hours is finished. Then he makes the move. The opponent now has to either move before the session ends, or be prompted by the arbiter to seal his move. In this game, Spassky took plenty of time and eventually sealed just the right move, which made it easy for him to draw the next day, after thorough analysis. The games of the match began at 5 PM, and the adjournments began at 2:30 PM the next day. The first session was 5 hours, and the following sessions, if necessary, were 4 hours, with a time control of 16 moves per hour. Thus time controls were at move 40 in the first session and at moves 56 and 72 in the second session. No game extended into a third session in this match.> > |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
