Chess World Championship

[MicroBob]

Right, it was game 1. Thanks for the correction.
Obviously my memory of chess history is a bit sketchy.

However, I've read many who believed that Fischer's move was indeed a 'blunder'. Your opinion may indeed be valid (not sure, I'm not very good) but certainly the idea that it was just a 'terrible blunder' isn't an uncommon one either.

Here's what wikipedia said about that game:

[ QUOTE ]
No one knows what went on in Fischer's mind when he blundered with 29... Bxh2?? (see algebraic chess notation) in this rather lifeless position. Every chess beginner learns that the rook pawn is poisoned for the Bishop. Could Fischer really have missed 30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 h4 32. Kf3 h3 33. Kg4 Bg1 34. Kxh3 Bxf2 35. Bd2, trapping the bishop? Karpov has suggested that the reason was overconfidence. The move 29... Bxh2 would become Fischer's most famous move. Fischer probably planned 32. ... h3 33. Kg4 Bg1 34. Kxh3 Bxf2 but overlooked 35. Bd2 and the bishop is trapped (Kasparov 2005:434). Surprisingly, Fischer had good drawing chances with two pawns for the Bishop but he bungled again before adjournment. He resigned on move 56.

[/ QUOTE ]


I had previously read the comical line about the 'surprise value' of the 'move 1 = resign'.
Pretty funny.
I think I saw it in the book, 'The even more bizarre complete chess addict' but know that it has bounced around elsewhere.


Fischer did play a queen's gamblit against Spassky in game 6 (I said queen's pawn opening which isn't correct since he opened with c4).

It was considered extremely surprising that Fischer would choose this opening (I guess it isn't correct that he had NEVER played it before but I could swear that I read that somewhere).

my chess books are in storage right now so I can't refer to them.

But here's what one website said about game 6 of 1972:

[ QUOTE ]


Fischer v Spassky Game 6 1972

Perhaps the best game of the 1972 match and certainly one of the most famous games in chess history. And to think this was the first time Fischer had played the white side of a Queen's Gambit as an adult.

Spassky chooses to defend with the Tartakower Variation of the Orthodox Defence, probably a good choice as he had previously never been beaten in this opening. But here he plays below his best and allows Fischer to establish a clear advantage from the opening. That alone would not be enough to make this game a classic - Fischer then goes on to play one of the most beautiful middlegames in the history of chess.

When Spassky resigned, he joined in the applause given to Fischer, I think I would have probably have thrown a punch.

[/ QUOTE ]


here's what wikipedia said about games 6 and 8:


[ QUOTE ]
In the sixth game, Fischer opened with 1. c4, one of the very rare instances he has not opened with 1.e4, nullifying Spassky's extensive opening preparation. Once again, Spassky played passively.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
After this game, Spassky joined the audience in applauding Fischer's win. Psychologically, he had already lost the match. He would later reluctantly refer to this game as the best of the match.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In game 8, Fischer again played 1. c4, this time an English opening. Spassky gave up an exchange for little compensation, and it is unclear whether it was a sacrifice or a blunder. Fischer won, and he was ahead 5-3.

[/ QUOTE ]