R Byrne vs Fischer, 1963

This game, in my opinion, is the one
where Fischer saw the deepest. The
reason why is: you do not play 43. Rd3, unless you can visualize the bishop demolition some 25 or 30 moves
later:

Fischer vs Taimanov, 1971

But perhaps these are too well known.
The following are lesser known examples, but ones where it's obvious Fischer is calculating more deeply than his strong opponent.

In this one, Fischer snatches a pawn
that his opponent was sure couldn't be taken, and must have seen to at least 26.... Bd7, saving the a pawn. Is this position a win or a draw? Not easy for me to tell, the doubled pawns might make it a draw. But: Fischer KNOWS it is a win. If he didn't, he would have left the d pawn were it was, instead of going in for 14... Nxd4, and tried a different way of outplaying Bisguier.

Bisguier vs Fischer, 1961

There are other examples, but this
little known game is a personal favorite of mine. I've played over tens of thousands of games, but I am unaware of another example of a queen being trapped on the open board quite like Fischer did here:

Fischer vs S Schweber, 1970

Golombek made this point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Fischer's perhaps strongest ability, which set him apart from perhaps any other player, ever, was in the transition from the middlegame to the endgame. What this is saying is: Fischer is seeing an awful lot of moves ahead.

That's an awful lot, my friend. Happy Thanksgiving.>

Are you kidding me? Keres! A man
who unquestionably was world championship strength, who prepared an opening innovation for Fischer, who
simply refutes it right over the
board. Unbelievable.

There are some games that could at least match this game's complexity and beauty. (Kasparov-Topalov, Linares 1999 is one very good example.)

A lot of people rated that game lower than the Byrne-Fischer game simply because Topalov COULD OF avoided all the tactics and combos if he had played 24...Kb6! But we could equally say that Byrne also "COULD OF" avoided all those sacrifices had he not played Bg5.

True, the fact that Fischer was only 13 yrs old when he played this game was just amazing. But "age" is only just another factor that made this a famous game. It DOES NOT increase the "beauty" and "power" of the combination itself in any way.

RookFile said that "Bg5" was wrongfully comdemned. I really disagree with this statement. Nunn correctly pointed out that Byrne has violated the basic principle of opening play by moving the same piece twice in the opening. Of course, that statement alone is not enough to condemn Bg5. Let's analyze the position before 11.Bg5 again.

Now, Black had just played 10...Bg4 threatening to ruin White's kingside pawn structure with Bxf3 which will in turn also weaken white's hold on d4 and e5. All this calls for the natural 11.Be2, which everyone here would agree. But let's look at the position more closely again...Black has finished his development. His king is safely tucked away and is ready to attack White's centre. White in turn has not yet finished development and his king is still stuck in the centre. All these factors again calls for 11.Be2 ready to 0-0 getting the White's king to safety.

<Now, Black had just played 10...Bg4 threatening to ruin White's kingside pawn structure with Bxf3 which will in turn also weaken white's hold on d4 and e5. All this calls for the natural 11.Be2, which everyone here would agree.>

The reason why is: if 11. Be2 is played, after 11... Nfd7 12. Qa3 Bxf3, Soltis recomends, and Kasparov also
notes, the reply 13. gxf3. (It is
true that you can also play 13. Bxf3 e5 14. dxe5 Qe8 15. Be2 Nxe5 16. 0-0 with a slight advantage. (Flear-Morris, Dublin 1991)

In these types of positions, as Donald Byrne was aware, it is often not necessary for white to castle. Very often in the Gruenfeld, on a ...Qa5 check move from black, you'll see white play Kf1. He reckons that his rook on h1 is just fine to support h4 and h5.

The point of Be2 is not so much to worry about the pawn structure as it is to safeguard the king from pins along the e file and to provide an option of 0-0 or Kf1.

So Byrne had an idea: his 11. Bg5 was geared towards preventing ....e5 and also towards preventing the typical ...Nfd7 from black. Sure, it didn't work: but if Black had played the 'natural' moves 11.... Bxf3 12. gxf3 Re8 13. Be2 Nfd7 14. Qa3!
the position resembles the type of game Soltis is looking for, and is in fact favorable to white.

So, a 13 year old boy was already thinking at a much higher level than a master would have, about this position.

GNUchess finds this move after 7 minutes of thinking and thinks white is winning eval: 2.01

Chesmaster 3 just doesn't find the move and he doesn't have an evaluation process ( hehe...)

Chessmaster 6 finds this move after 3 minutes of thinking and also think white is winning eval: 1.98

My old battle chess sofware (1991) just doesn't find the move and think white is winning eval: unclear(!)

Chessgenius (1994) finds this move after 23 seconds of thinking, but doesn't get the following combination quickly, so he also thinks white is winning eval: 1.51

Chessmaster 7 finds it in about 7 seconds and he's the first one to get the rest of the moves correctly but strangely he thinks white is winning eval: 0.98 to 1.22

Chessmaster 9 finds it after 0.5 seconds and gives black a good advantage of: 2,93 and he predicts correctly the whole move order after that.