46...Bf6? goes something like:

--With opposite-color bishops are usually drawn (but not always, as Carlsen recently demonstrated and as I have sadly found out in my games).

--With same-color bishops are usually lost.

--With rooks are sometimes lost, sometimes not. There are a million or so factors to consider. Remember the phrase "Lucena Position" and hope you can recall how to achieve it (or avoid it) in an actual game.

--I once swindled some poor slob I was playing on the internet into a K+B (wrong color)+RP vs K ending; it was one of the high points of my life. He or she was so ticked off that they refused to concede the draw and kept on playing until just before time ran out, at which point (s)he stalemated me.

So, for this game, Larsen should have tried to keep the rooks and trade off the bishops, maybe by playing 44...Bf8 instead of 44...Bc3. Although in this position the white king is so far advanced that black is probably lost anyway.

Isnt chess an objective analysis? If Larsen is losing then there must be a fatal move. Unless you believe that chess is a forced win from move 1....

If not then what? You talk about Spassky's centralized K and the outside passed pawn. BOth of these are objective/logical. In fact the centralized K is necessary to exploit the outside passed pawn, yes?

Honestly, I don't know if 39...b3 would have saved black. I don't like it much myself, because after white plays c3 black's b-pawn looks like it might be hard to defend. I might have tried something like 39...Bh6. This seems to force a trade of bishops, which should increase black's drawing chances.

Even if some computer comes along and doesnt like your 40th just pretend you are spassky and only have so much time before the control. So you play and see what happens.

Sure enuf take a look at Maynard's original analysis in the first post up thread...

Is 22...Bxe5 really so bad? He doesnt give a line. Just some white threats. What if it goes:

22...Bxe5
23. Bg2 Rbd8 (more sensible than the crap pc suggestion of Rf6, ha) 24. Nd3 Bc4

Funny, huh? How stuff that might have happened earlier hangs over the game like some ghost. But that's part of the beauty of chess you can use that info to help you later.

I.e. if we really believe that Larsen was following an analysis on move 23 along the lines suggested by Maynard then surely he would have been considering some sort of Rook on open file stuff. Hence, wouldnt that be a clue to find the answer later in the game?

Or is it more likely at that pt. he simply lost the most logical progression of things? And all he saw was the B skewer on the Q and that was it? So when we get to move 42 there is no clue as to how to proceed.

Larsen played a lot of original and fine games against some players, for sure. But when I notice when he played Fischer he seemed to know where the most logical line is going and then he would back off at the last minute when he saw a ghost or something. Seemed to happen over and over again vs Fischer. And why not? Fischer always played the most logical progression of moves to whatever conclusion it would lead to, if you go down that road and then you back off at the last minute....Whoa! Bad.

After 27 Bxc5 White's bishops dominate the queen side and win a second pawn. Larsen manages to regain one of the pawns in the end but this does not save his game.