chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
Boris Spassky vs Bobby Fischer
"Fischer King" (game of the day Nov-01-2008)
Spassky - Fischer World Championship Match (1972), Reykjavik ISL, rd 13, Aug-10
Alekhine Defense: Modern. Alburt Variation (B04)  ·  0-1

ANALYSIS [x]

FEN COPIED

Click Here to play Guess-the-Move
Given 48 times; par: 120 [what's this?]

explore this opening
find similar games 55 more Spassky/Fischer games
sac: 49...Kxd7 PGN: download | view | print Help: general | java-troubleshooting

TIP: You should register a free account to activate some of Chessgames.com's coolest and most powerful features.

PGN Viewer:  What is this?
For help with this chess viewer, please see the Olga Chess Viewer Quickstart Guide.
PREMIUM MEMBERS CAN REQUEST COMPUTER ANALYSIS [more info]

A COMPUTER ANNOTATED SCORE OF THIS GAME IS AVAILABLE.  [CLICK HERE]

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-11-24
Premium Chessgames Member
  Chessmaletaja: In the 13th game of the 1972 match, Spassky had white pieces but played the opening poorly. Interestingly, Fischer grabbed White's pawn on the edge of the board—the a-pawn—spending several tempos. But Fischer did not touch White's central pawn, e5, which is essential for White's attack in the Alekhine defence. Perhaps Fischer was afraid of opening the lines and diagonals blocked by that pawn. White had a typical Spassky-style attack.

Tactical analysis shows that Black could take the pawn e5 with 20...♗xe5 or with 21...♗xe5.

Instead, Fischer played 21...♕d7 and after 22 ♖ad1!, instead of playing 22...♗xe5 made a mistake 22...♖fe8?.

<The position after 22...♖fe8:>


click for larger view

Note that on 23 ♘c5? Black has the answer 23...♕d5!.

However, Spassky missed here a strong move 23 b3!. The idea is that after 23...♗d5 the square d5 is occupied, and White will play 24 ♘c5!.

However, Black has a strong answer 23...c5!, after which the position is approximately equal.

In the game, Spassky played such slow or passive moves as 23 f4, 25 ♕c3, 26 ♔h2 and 27 ♘d3.

As a result, Black dissipated White's attack and after 29...♕xd6 30 exd6 ♗xc3 31 bxc3 Black had simply an extra pawn in the complex endgame:


click for larger view

The analysis of that fantastic endgame of the 13th match game needs a separate book.

Above, I have used the book

Karoly, Tibor "Fischer - Spassky 1972" (2022)

Aug-12-24  N.O.F. NAJDORF: 75. Bxf2 Rd1 76. Ra4 Rb1+ 77. Kc3 Kxf2 wins

75. Rf4 Rxd4 76. Rxd4 Kg2 77. Rd1 f1=Q 78. Rxf1 Kxf1 79. Ka1 Ke2 80. Kb2 Kd3 81. Ka1 Kc4 82. Kb2 a1=Q+ 83. Kxa1 Kc3 84. Kb1 b2 wins

Aug-13-24  N.O.F. NAJDORF: <agadmator says that Gligoric mentioned 25. e6 in his book of the match, but I don't remember that and certainly do not recall that Gligoric rated it a missed winning move.>

He did mention it!

He wrote:

25 Q-B3!?

25 P-K6! was strong and more dangerous.
White probably did not like 25 ... N-B5, but after 26 Q-B1 there would be good counterplay ahead for him.

Oct-21-24  andrea volponi: 25 e6!(la migliore mossa)...Nc4(...a3-f5!=)- Qe2 Nxb2 -Nf5 Nxd1 -Nxg7 Kxg7 -Qe5+ f6! -Qxd5 Nc3(la mossa di agadmator ;30...Nb2 -g5!( migliore di 31Qd4 (smyslov) Qd8!=)Qc4 g5 -fxg5 hxg5 -Bxg5 fxg5 -Qxc3+Kh7 -Re5(Qd3 ⩲/+-) Rg8!-Ne4 Qd8! -Nxg5 = parità.
Oct-21-24
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 (kibitz #55)

<WMD: <Timman's match book, crediting Smyslov, indicates the line 25.e6 Nc4 26.Qe2! as being critical. "The plan is 26...Nxb2 27.Nf5!, a very original attacking idea. The former World Champion stops here with the statement that White has a fierce attack. No doubt he had the variation 27...Bc4 28.exf7+ Kxf7 29.Qxe7+ Rxe7 30.Rxe7+ Kf8 31.Nd7+ in mind.">>

<andrea volponi: 25 e6!(la migliore mossa)...Nc4...>


click for larger view

We may never know the best move.
If Spassky had been on good form he might have played 25. e6.
Fischer was on great form. He would have defended no problem.
But who knows?

Oct-21-24
Premium Chessgames Member
  harrylime:

I'm thinking this game was the template for Alekhine's defence players for years to come. Invaluable for theory.

An extraordinary game.

An extraordinary match.

Oct-22-24  Olavi: <Invaluable for theory> Hardly; as every commentator pointed out, Spassky played a completely innocuous, unambitious opening...
Oct-22-24  Petrosianic: <Olavi: <Invaluable for theory> Hardly; as every commentator pointed out, Spassky played a completely innocuous, unambitious opening...>

You're spoiling the illusion. Harry says he doesn't even play chess, he's only interested in Fischer The Pop Culture Icon. From that POV the more famous the game, the more monumental it must be in every way. In his heart, this would be the MCO game of the year, if he knew what MCO was.

Nov-05-24  andrea volponi: 25 e6! smyslov followed his idea with 25...Nc4 -Qe2! (Qc1gligoric 26...a3! -+) 26...Nxb2 -Nf5!! when white has a very strong attack . it seems kasparov,timman, soltis,muller,among others,think that black problaby loses this position,but 27Nxd1!! -Nxg7 Kxg7 -Qe5+ f6! -Qxd5 Ne3! (30...Nb2 smyslov -31 g5!!+- )-Rxe3 a3 - Re1 a2 -Ra1 Ra5 leads to an unbalaneed but roughly equal position.
Nov-05-24  andrea volponi: 2 5 e6! a3!? (suggested by prins )-26 f5! (timman )Nc4 -white coold have thrown every thing at black king -27 Qf4 Nxb2 -f6 Bxf6 -Bxf6 exf6 -Qxf6 Qd8 -Qxf7+ Kh8 -Nf5 gxf5 -Rxd5 Qxd5 -Qf6+ but white must settle for a draw by perpetual check.
Jan-06-25  N.O.F. NAJDORF: After

25. e6 Nc4 26. Qe2 b6 27. Nf5 gxf5 28. Rxd5 bxc5 29. Qxc4 Bd4+ 30. Kh2 fxe6 31. Rxf5 Qa6 32. Qa2 c4 33. Rh5 Bg7 34. g5 Qb5

white cannot win

Mar-17-25  frankumber: it is without a doubt one of the finest games played in a championship match. Even with the computer aided examination of the missteps and outright errors playing this game in the heat of the moment must have been terrifying.
Mar-18-25  Petrosianic: <frankumber: it is without a doubt one of the finest games played in a championship match. Even with the computer aided examination of the missteps and outright errors playing this game in the heat of the moment must have been terrifying.>

If by "fine game" you mean one of the most dramatic fights, it is that, on the same kind of level as Capablanca-Alekhine, Game 11, or Topalov-Kramnik, Game 2.

But if you mean best played game, it's certainly not that. You alluded to the missteps and errors yourself.

If I were to rate Fischer's wins in this match by quality of play, I'd make it something like this:

Game 6
Game 10
Game 3
Game 13
Game 21
Game 5
Game 8

Jul-08-25  Garech: It still surprises me that game 6 is given such high praise in the 1972 match when this game is there to contend with it!

Truly spectacular.

Jul-08-25  Petrosianic: <Garech>: I'm surprised you're surprised.
Jul-08-25
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: I am not surprised you´re surprised.
Jul-08-25
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Surprisingly I agree with Petrosianic. Game 6.

The highfalutin will go for game 13 which should come as no surprise.

Jul-08-25  Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson>: <The highfalutin will go for game 13 which should come as no surprise.>

Game 13 is the most epic battle, much like Game 11 of Capablanca-Alekhine, or Game 17 of Karpov-Korchnoi. But part of what makes battles epic is that they tend to have an ebb and flow to them, with first one player then the other having an edge. And it requires mutual mistakes to swing that way.

We can criticize some of Spassky's moves in Game 6 (what's up with d4?). But the mistakes aren't mutual. Fischer played great in that game.

Jul-09-25
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: <Hi Petrosianic>

You stopped the running 'surprise' gag. Never mind I think it had run our of steam.

All the games are good, this one is a diamond. But my favourite in game 6 due to the first move! and what followed. Spassky too thought it was good. After game 6 he joined in on the applause.

In game 6 Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 this position arose.


click for larger view

and White played 6. e3...Ehh? It must be 6.e5 h6 7.Bg5...this does not look right.

And I wonder how many people had misread the first move. I did and played 1.e4 instead of 1.c4 from the moves in a newspaper. (another surprise.)
That is the position you get from game 6 if you start off with 1.e4.

This was predicted by 'Chess Review' in June 1972. 'But Boris, what if he does not play 1.P-K4?' https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo...

Jul-09-25  Petrosianic: Gligoric gave 1. c4 an exclam in Games 6 and 8, but not in 12 and 14.

These days they make it sound like c4 was a total thunderbolt out of the blue, but there were rumblings on the horizon that Fischer might try something like this. He'd already played 1. c4 against Polugaevsky, and 1. b3 against Mecking. He even played 1. d4, albeit in a Blitz game. The Chess Life & Review cover wasn't psychic, just making an educated guess from what we'd already seen.

As for what Boris would do, it was no great surprise, to Fischer or anybody else, that he'd play the Tartakower Variation, which he'd never lost with. It would have been really cool if he'd played the Tarrasch Defense, which he'd played several times in the 1969 World Championship, but being caught off guard he stuck to what he knew best.

I saw a subtle, hidden meaning in 1. c4. Fischer had been on record saying that 1. d4 led to nothing. So, how do you play a Queen's Pawn opening without having to eat crow on that statement? A: Play it by transposition. I don't think that quite resolves the issue, but probably that's what Fischer was thinking.

Jul-09-25
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: < Hi Petrosianic>

Of course back then no net or game databases, no instant news, the only thing I had on Fisher was a 1969 copy of M60Mg's with chunks of it going over my head. 'best by test.' I could understand.

I've checked a few books that came out soon after the match ( four appeared within 2-3 weeks of the match ending) all used 'surprised' or 'unexpected' in the first note.
Reshevsky (his book pub 1972) writes; "...this was perhaps the first time he ever resorted to this move." (even he was unsure.)

These days; click-click on a mouse and you can see every recorded move by Fischer. Back then it was what you knew and there no way to find out unless you fired off a snail mail letter to a magazine.

Or in some cases, made up what you think happened.
Sammy continues; 'Spassky, after taking some time to get over the shock of the unexpected move..."
Was Sammy there, I do not think so.

I wondered if he was so paid a visit my Uncle Ted's site. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... One of the Reshevsky books on the match (he had his name on three of them) may have been ghost written. (maybe by someone who was there!)

Jul-09-25  Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson>: <Of course back then no net or game databases, no instant news, the only thing I had on Fisher was a 1969 copy of M60Mg's with chunks of it going over my head. 'best by test.' I could understand.>

In the pre-internet age, USCF published lots of pamphlets. Not nearly big enough to be considered books, but they could be very informative. Many of them were opening treatises, like Larsen's "Why Not the Philidor Defense?" (If you read it, you'll find out why not.)

But one I still have somewhere is a booklet called "Fischer 1970", which, as it sounds, contains every game Fischer played that year. No annotations, just a sentence or so of descriptions of each game. Even without notes it was enormously valuable. You'd find the games you were interested in and go over them on your own. One of the first things I did when I bought it was to see what openings and opening moves Fischer had played that year.

When that first omnibus book of Fischer's games came out, someone wrote a letter to Larry Evans asking if Fischer had missed an easy win in this game:

Fischer vs A Saidy, 1957

Larry confirmed that he had (30. Qh6!), but defended the lapse by opining that there was something morbid about publishing EVERY available game from a player. That's definitely not a comment that's stood the test of time.

All this is not to say that 1. c4 wasn't a surprise. Of course it was. But not a total shock. More like something people including that cartoon artist had thought about, and decided <probably> wouldn't happen.

Jul-10-25
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: <Hi Petrosianic >

Well 1.c4 was a surprise to me and here we are still talking about it. 😊

When you think about it this match has a few famous single moves that has launched a thousand posts.
1.c4, 29 Bxh2 and Fischer playing 8...Qxb2 for a second time in game 11.

I have some of the chess digest or chess enterprise pamphlets. I bought a load of books including those at the B.H.Wood bookstall in my first U.K. tournament back 1973.

"...something morbid about publishing EVERY available game." I was thinking perhaps Fischer was the first player to have all his known games published in one book but then remembered they did that with Morphy's games.

Jul-10-25  Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson> More than anything else, Bxh2 explains why Fischer couldn't continue after 1972. The absolute hysteria over a poor move of the kind that anyone could make on a bad day, and which <wasn't even the losing move> showed that from now on, every game and every move Fischer made would be put under a microscope, and anything less than perfect would have people asking "what went wrong?". Nobody could play under those conditions. When Fischer got that winning streak, people felt "Okay, now he has to win all the time". It ain't happening.

The other iconic move in this match that seems to have lost its luster over time, is 14. Nb1 from Game 11. At the time, people showered this move with exclams, calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread. "Spassky says he came up with it over the board, but nobody believes him" went one comment. It was one of only two moves in the entire <match> that Gligoric gave two exclams to (and you'd never guess the other).

But all this wore off as people gradually realized that the move just wasn't that great. Edmar Mednis totally nailed it:

MEDNIS: <14. N-N1!?

A move which was invariably given two exclamation marks -- 14. N-N1!! after the game. May I respectfully suggest that if Spassky had gone on to lose this game it would have read 14. N-N1??

If we look at the nature of the position, it should be apparent that neither of these extremes is warranted. White has difficulties in how to continue, so he decides to first kick Black's Queen. However, this is an open position and White's QN is placed well on QB3. Retreating it to QN1 obviously cannot be a winning maneuver. It is simply an interesting concept which works because Fischer has an off game. Under the circumstances 14. N-Q1!? would also have probably won.

As a historical note, it may be stated that those commentators who were loudest in applauding 14. N-N1!? neither played it themselves nor worried about it when their turn came. One example is Tal-R. Byrne, Leningrad Interzonal 1973, which continued 14. Q-K3, R-B1; 15. N-N1 Q-R5; 16. P-B4, N-R4; 17. Q-QB3, NxP; 18. QxP, R-R3 and it turned out that Black stood quite well.>

This game gave me fits when I was starting out. The only way N-N1 could be a winning move is if the Queen is trapped and White wins it by force. Which he doesn't, as far as I could see. Mednis gave 15...P-Q4?? as the losing move, which I <did> understand. On the rare occasions I've played the White side of the Poisoned Pawn, I don't even play 9. Nb3. I think 9. Rb1 is more in keeping with the position (why give up that Pawn at all if you don't plan to make use of the open file?).

Jul-10-25
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: <Hi Petrosianic>

Yes, your theory about Bxh2 makes a lot of sense.

Although everything he did on and off the board was already being studied by chess players, now the whole world would be privy to it and a lot of it would be written by hacks who never played the game.

He wanted publicity for the game, he did not realise he would be at the centre of it and what if he lost v Karpov with the whole world watching.
No thank you, I've did my bit, goodbye.

I gave an opinion Spassky's OTB idea.

Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 (kibitz #258)

I'm thinking Spassky knew of it as a suggestion but it was not explored fully because his team did not expect Fischer to risk it again. So instead of following the previous game he played it to get Fischer out of his prep.
More of an OTB decision than inspiration. A bit of both.

These days I guess we can be a bit more sceptical about opening TN claims to be the product of OTB intuition, it is a good job Rybka and Fritz do not have lawyers.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 23)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 23 OF 23 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

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


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific game only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

This game is type: CLASSICAL. Please report incorrect or missing information by submitting a correction slip to help us improve the quality of our content.

Featured in the Following Game Collections[what is this?]
Fischer chooses Alekhine over Sicilian and gets a win in '72
from Historically Important Alekhine's Defense Games by ksadler
Game #13
from The Fischer-Spassky Reykjavik 1972 match by dac1990
bitter end for boris
from kevin86's favorite games by kevin86
#13 Spassky has great recovery,then blunders
from fischer-spassky by kevin86
World Championship Game #13
from Road to the Championship - Bobby Fischer by Fischer of Men
'72 in '72, - a heroic game in the spassky vs fischer match
from S4NKT's favorite games by S4NKT
Game 98
from Bobby Fischer Rediscovered (Andy Soltis) by AdrianP
fischer-spassky match, alekhine's defense by fish 1
from paultopia's favorite games by paultopia
I just like this one. OK?
from World Championship Games by Calchexas
Favorite Endgames
by Gottschalk
69. Rd1+? (Rc3+!) drives the Black king to support f-pawn.
from Fischer vs Spassky oversights by Dick Brain
Great Endgame Battles
by Gregor Samsa Mendel
woodenbishop's favorite games #2
by woodenbishop
lopium's favorite games
by lopium
Awesome Endgame
from Chess would not be chess without these games by Mating Net
Frotney loves this game.
from Fluxcapacitor's favorite games by Fluxcapacitor
Game 105
from Garry Kasparov's On My Great Predecessors (4) by AdrianP
kcb's favorite games
by kcb
OneArmedScissor's favorite games
by OneArmedScissor
mynameisrandy's favorite games
by mynameisrandy
plus 359 more collections (not shown)

Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC