Kraidman played it as early as the eleventh move and went on to miss two winning chances against Fischer:

Yeah, probably objectively best. But don't think can fault how Spassky played the opening.

After Fischer cleverly opens lines on the king side, Spassky now has to consider both trying to get the thematic e5 in without weakening king too much. Move f4 is typically the move to prep e5. But with the open file and strong black DSB maybe not appetizing.

Spassky's answer looked ok. He closes the file and gets a decent Bf4 which can support e5. Unfortunately, Fischer gets the Qside going, Spassky maybe loses a tempo, and never gets e5 counter play.

White has to play f3 eventually if he is to save his e-pawn.

After 15. Bd2, he cannot play f3 because of:

For example,

12. f4 Bd4+ 13. Kh1 Qh4 14. Bxh5

In fact, after that move, White had no good plans, while Black had a plan to play b5.

It is interesting to note that in the CG commentarium here, several commentators claim that 18 g3 was a mistake. But none of the commentators here have tried to explain what is wrong with that move, why it is a bad move.

<...several commentators claim that 18 g3 was a mistake. But none of the commentators here have tried to explain what is wrong with that move, why it is a bad move.>

Best to fall back on what good human players say who we know for sure never used a computer.

In three of the instant books that came out after the match and printed in 1972 by Gligoric, Purdy and Reshevsky all three state 18 g3 was a poor choice. Also, these three never wrote by result (panning the losers moves and praising the winners.)

Paraphrasing: Weakens the light squares, and underestimates the Black attack on the e4 pawn (which can no longer be protected with f3)

18 g3 weakens the light squares around White's king.

One may object that Black has no knights and cannot use those light squares, as Black's light-squared bishop has no access to them.

However, at the end of the game, Black still had access to these light squares, and it played a vital role.

After 18 g3? whenever White plays f4 or f4, then after gxf3, White cannot take with the pawn gxf3, and thus, cannot strengthen the central pawn e4.

But if White opens the f-file and plays f3, gxf3, Rxf3, the light squares near White's king are weak.

Moreover, the pawn on g3 restricts White's manoeuvres in several ways.

First, the movements of the bishop on f4 are restricted.

Second, White's rook on f3 cannot access the squares g3 and h3.

It makes it difficult to attack Black's weakened king's position.

I used those three books because they were on hand and printed in 1972 so very little chance of authors copying from each other with each author using their own assessment. (without computers.)

I have about 8-9 books printed in the 70's covering that match. Hard to say which one I think is the best. It all depends on what mood I'm in. Today it's Gligoric. I have none on the modern computer riddled book on the 1972 match.

Hi Chessmaletaja,

I was agreeing with you. A few here give a good computer assisted guess at why a move has been classed as an error - often they are only half right or way off track.

I was paraphrasing about the weak White squares. Reshevsky notes the King's position is weakened. Purdy goes the deepest, Gligoric is about right. Three good books and they do not always agree on the good or bad merits of a move.

Here (me to play)

click for larger view

Concerning the good sides of the move 18 g3. If White plays so, blocking the kingside, then White has to prevent Black's pawn majority attack on the queenside. Spassky failed to do it.

The analyses show it was possible to prevent Black from playing b5 or at least to slow down it.

I am using Tibor Karolyi's book

"Fischer - passky 1972" (2022).

I just gave honest post to what I would have played and my reasoning. I always think in 'what would I have done terms.'

Here, again being honest and knowing me.

click for larger view

Spassky played 24.Qd3. I'm pretty sure I would have seen no way of improving my position and seeing I was getting bug crushed I'd have lashed out with 24.e5.

Patient defending has never been my forte, my reckoning being Black would not have expected it and instead of sitting there watching them comfortably enjoying themselves taking all the time in the world to pressure the e-pawn they can just have it.

Quite a surprise from Bobby Fischer. The TN of the century?

No. I doubt very much if I'll buy another one. I'll get Spassky's if he ever brings one out. I'll certainly not be getting a modern book on the match. If I want to see the games put to death by computers then I can always come here.

I have Alexander, Gligoric, Purdy, Fine, Golombek, Reshevsky (two, he did one joint and one solo) Evans and Smith. That is straight from memory. I know I sold P.H. Clarke's quite a while ago.

I've told you what Fischer - Spassky '72 books I have. Your turn to tell me what Christmas present you had. Did you ever get an Amazing Robot?

Amazing Robots, Skewers and The Beatles https://www.redhotpawn.com/chess-bl...

Something else I got for Christmas. Knight Bookends.

https://www.redhotpawn.com/imgu/blo...