The second most commonly played move, 5. 0-0 scores better with 42.8% wins vs. 21.2% losses.

At a depth of 18 ply, Fritz seems to think that 5. d4 is best with a +.48 evaluation. 5. c3 is Fritz's fifth choice with an eval of +.20

7. Bb3
Fischer played this move on two other occasions and won both games. However, the move seems to have disappeared from top level play over the past 30-40 years.

7. 0-0 seems to have been the most commonly played move in this variation.

Fritz rates 7. Be3 and 7. d5 as the best moves here. In recent years both moves have been played and White has scored very well in those games.

8. 0-0
There are only ten examples of this move in the CGdb. White has 3 wins, 4 losses and 3 draws, -not great.

In his game with Olafsson at the Candidates tournament a few months later, Fischer played 8. Nbd2 and won in 78 moves. Fischer vs F Olafsson, 1959

Three years later, against a lesser opponent, Fisher tried 8. Qe2 and won in 26 moves.

Fischer vs V Ciocaltea, 1962

Fritz rates 8. Be3 as slightly better tha 0-0. There are five examples of this in the CGdb with White winning 3 and drawing 2. But none have been played since 1955.

After 9. Nbd2 Be7, there are nine examples in the CGdb, and White is winless in all games, with four losses and three draws.

At 18 ply, Fritz rates 9. d5 as best with a +.43 evaluation. Strangely, this has not been tried over the board in master play. At least there are no recorded examples of it being played in the CGdb. There is still room for innovation in opening theory!

At 19 ply, Fritz rates 9. Be3 at +.45. This was played once in 1923 and again in 1955. Black won once and drew once.

9. Nbd2 is only rated tenth best by Fritz, with an evaluation of +.23

14. Re1 is the indicated move. 14. Nh2 is Fritz's eigth choice, with an evaluation of +.13

17. Bc2 is where things start to really go south for 16 year old Bobby. Fritz recommends 17. Bd5, followed by Qxg6 with an eval of -.14 Bc2 gets a -.39

By move 23, Fischer had battled back to equality, with the evaluation standing at -0.04

27. Rfe1 is evaluated less favorably than f3 by 0.42 points.

On move 29, Fritz suggests f3, with an evaluation of -.59. Fischer's 29. Qf4 is evaluated at -.77.

On 30., Fischer needed to play Qh6 to keep the evaluation from sliding worse. The move he played was Fritz's second choice, but gets a very negative evaluation of -2.02. And that should have pretty much been the game.

Fischer's 39th move, Re3 is Fritz's fourth choice out of five possible moves and is evaluated as being a full point worse than 39. Kh2, giving Pachman an advantage of -2.68

However, Pachman followed that with a move that was also a full point worse than Fritz's first choice 39 ...Re6! By move 50, when he played ...Re2, Pachman had frittered away nearly all of his advantage.

51. f4! and Fischer would have had strong drawing chances. Instead, he played Kf4, and the evaluation was back to -2.02 in Black's favor.

On move 53, Fischer's best choice was Kg3 with an evaluation of -2.61. Rd8 leads to a snowball effect, as the evaluation falls to -3.65

15.de5? relieves the tension in the center and opens the d-file for black. It would have been a good move had whites attack succeeded. 15.Bc2 was recommended.

After 21....Bc6! the coordination of the black pieces is ideal. Pachman calculated 22.b3 and 22.Nf3 both with advantage for black.

In other words; is the meaning (or one collateral meaning) of any competition to prove (assuming that the loser is a "female" and the winner a "male"...) who is the "male" and who the "female"?!?

Probably makes the most sense.

"Randy Pachman-Taking Care of Business!"

click for larger view

Komodo-9.42-64bit: