ah ah ah, put the issue as you want, however, Panno could simply forfeit the day before, by informing the referees that he did not want to play the day after. He preferred to resign after 1. c4, so it doesn’t matter whether he had an headache, or he was about to leave with the next Apollo mission, or he protested for the scheduled last round, or because he was so impressed to see 1.c4, what really matters – also for statistical purposes - is that he resigned after the first move>

<It seems you have no idea about what "winning in opening" means. A "won opening" doesn't mean that a player is mating his opponent before 20 moves. A "won opening" means that a player got a CLEAR ADVANTAGE, before 20-25 moves, so that his opponent - at correct game (i.e. without further mistakes by both players)- cannot overthrow the situation, NO MATTER whether the losing player is resisting other 20-30-50 moves, before resigning. So, if you say that only Uhlmann - Fischer was won in opening by Fischer - out of that famous streak of 20 games - that is proving that you have no clue of what a win in opening is.>

"Won in [the] opening" means "won in the opening." "Clear advantage in the opening" means "clear advantage in the opening."

If, coming out of the opening, one player is guaranteed victory if he makes no further mistakes, that's not "a clear advantage." That's "won in the opening."

Of course no one thinks that "won in the opening" covers only "mated opponent in 20 moves or less". That is demonstrated by the Uhlmann game itself.

Uhlmann vs Fischer, 1970

Uhlmann blunders on move 13, and fights on to a hopeless endgame before resigning at move 34. Nevertheless, we can say that game was won in the opening, because that is when Fischer got a winning position.

Using terms correctly, in addition to the Uhlmann game, it's fair to say that Fischer won against Rubinetti in the opening (Fischer vs J A Rubinetti, 1970), and pretty much against Mecking (who really didn't play well -- that game is a great Nimzowitsch tribute, but hardly a monument to opening prep Fischer vs Mecking, 1970), and game #3 against Larsen (Fischer vs Larsen, 1971).

<4) How Fischer won his World Championship 1972 match

Fischer succeeded in winning 6 games out of 7 – outplaying Spassky – in OPENING. 3rd, >

he got an advantage, yes

<5th,>

Slight advantage, but he won on a blunder.

<6th,>

clear advantage, but still an amazing game.

<8th,>

Spassky made a dubious exchange sacrifice followed by a horrible blunder. Didn't really have a lot to do with Fischer's alleged opening dependence.

<10th,>

You're just wrong about this. Complicated Ruy Lopez, somewhat better for White, Fischer played better in the middle game and ending. Great game by both.

< 21st>

False. Fischer had a nice novelty, but it's not why he won.

<only exception was game 13th , where Spassky was so unwise as to silly throw away a drawn endgame.>

Errors by both sides, not to mention guile and resourcefulness. Even Botvinnik was impressed.

<In his turn, Spassky defeated Fischer in game 11th by outplaying him in less than 20 moves through a successful novelty in his longtime favorite “poisoned pawn” variation. That game is very important, because it was PROVING once more that Fischer’s weakness was that he was relying too much on opening schemes and home preparation, but he could be defeated – sometimes very quickly - (see his games with Tal, Petrosian, Keres, Geller) whenever top GM were able to find “holes” in his openings’ arsenal.>

Pretty much everything you say about this game is wrong. There was no hole in Fischer's preparation. Fischer just played terribly, as he did in #2 of the Petrosian match. Didn't have anything to do with Spassky's harmless novelty.

Spassky vs Fischer, 1972

Petrosian vs Fischer, 1971

Keres -- are you talking about the 1959 Caro-Kann games? When Fischer was 16? Not going to bother posting those.

The two Geller wins from 1967? They weren't because of holes in Fischer's prep. He went wrong and immediately got guillotined, as happens in positions like that.

Fischer vs Geller, 1967

Fischer vs Geller, 1967

Here are the 20 straight wins, if anyone is curious. Draw your own conclusions.

When did Fischer say that his "secret" was the openings? Provide references. Of course he was better in the openings than most of GMs. But that's because he studied harder than anyone and he was better in all the aspects of the game than the rest.

This is what Dvoretsky has to say about Fischer:

<Looking backward into chess history, what do you think about Bobby Fischer's non-computer-era endgame technique in comparison to other world champions and modern top grandmasters?

Fischer was fantastic in the endgame. He was fantastic in many areas but in the endgame he was absolutely great. I remember there is the story about when he was like sixteen years old, something like this, and in a tournament he played an endgame against Taimanov - bishop and pawn against bishop - and he knew how to make a draw. The analysis of this endgame was published in some magazine in the Soviet Union and he had studied this analysis. So he was fantastic in the endgame, he played brilliant endgames.>

This is the reference: http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=report...

I get what you're saying; his opening advantages made the rest of the game easier. It's true.

It's a very good point but it actually proves how strong Fischer really was.

The Soviet GM's of that era, some of the best players ever, worked as a team and Fischer by himself was able to evaluate and analyze the lines better than them and always come away with an opening advantage. Of course he had the powerful technique to convert those positions.

... and hard work! There is nothing wrong with putting it in the same sentence. It's the most accurate thing to do.

And all work is not created equal. Perhaps some have an illusion that it is just "hard work." If it was all just determination, than anyone could be a great mentor and coach: just motivate! Simple.

<Karpov narrowly beat Spassky>

Presumably you meant "squashed"?

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

<You are dismissive of Kasparov's dominance over the entire chess world for 20 years, despite playing continuously in the very toughest events. But that is to be expected.>

<Karpov narrowly beat Spassky>

<Presumably you meant "squashed"? >

Yes, arguably Karpov beat Spassky better than Fischer did. A better winning percentage 63.6% vs. 59.5%.

On the other hand, if we're discussing peak dominance, then Fischer does look better. Fischer's peak was 120 points above everyone else. Kasparov's peak was 120 above everyone EXCEPT Karpov (who Fischer avoided matching himself against).

Kasparov, who knew a little about the subject, wrote that hard work is a talent also, and Fischer had this talent and then some. He also had an extraordinary memory.

A friend of mine played Fischer. Years later, Fischer asked him if he remembered their game. My friend, a senior master, said he remembered they had played, but didn't recall how it went, so Fischer played the game over from memory! Bear in mind, this was not an especially good game on either side, no special reason to remember it.