Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

Date: 27 Mar 2008 11:47:29
From: Freelancer71
Subject: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

Can anyone explain how/why Fischer lost is bishop in the first game of his
match against Spassky in 1972?
The fact that a bishop capturing the h2 or a2 pawn and getting trapped after
g3 or b3 is trivial. Everyone knows that. Did he really think he had chances
after sacrificing the bishop for two (or three?) pawns?

Date: 28 Mar 2008 00:54:56
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

"Freelancer71" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can anyone explain how/why Fischer lost is bishop in the first game of his
> match against Spassky in 1972?
> The fact that a bishop capturing the h2 or a2 pawn and getting trapped after
> g3 or b3 is trivial. Everyone knows that. Did he really think he had chances
> after sacrificing the bishop for two (or three?) pawns?
>

We are always being told how "real" chessplayers appreciate draws and
high quality chess. I've always wondered how that theory squares with the
fact that one of the most discussed games in chess history was not
only decisive but contained a rather elemental blunder. Had Fischer
played a "correct" move leading to a draw a few moves later, this game
would have been completely unrekable.

Date: 27 Mar 2008 21:14:22
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 27, 6:47 am, "Freelancer71" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Can anyone explain how/why Fischer lost is bishop in the first game of his
> match against Spassky in 1972?
> The fact that a bishop capturing the h2 or a2 pawn and getting trapped after
> g3 or b3 is trivial. Everyone knows that. Did he really think he had chances
> after sacrificing the bishop for two (or three?) pawns?

Spassky may have made a mistake himself with 36.a4, and Fischer may
have been able to draw with 37...a6.

Earlier, for white to win after 32...g5 33.Kg2 g4 34.Kxh2 h3 is not
easy.

Date: 27 Mar 2008 18:12:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 27, 2:47 am, "Freelancer71" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Can anyone explain how/why Fischer lost is bishop in the first game of his
> match against Spassky in 1972?
> The fact that a bishop capturing the h2 or a2 pawn and getting trapped after
> g3 or b3 is trivial. Everyone knows that. Did he really think he had chances
> after sacrificing the bishop for two (or three?) pawns?

In that particular position, it was far from
"trivial".

First of all, Black could advance his h-pawn
and exchange it (or possibly even promote it)
in an effort to free the Bishop.

Secondly, in order to finish the job, White
had to not only combat the h-pawn's advance,
but also he had to see that in all lines his
King and Bishop would work together to
cover all the various escape-routes.

Generally, speaking, Boris Spassky's move
(K-d3) is the sort of move which separates
the world champions from the also-rans. You
can find very similar things in the play of all
the world champions at their respective
peaks. In fact, the victim in this game, GM
Fischer, wrote about one in his MSMG book;
he noted that in some boring position, Tigran
Petrosian -- then world champion -- played
N(f3)-d1, heading for d3; the d3 square was
(just barely) closer to the center of the
board than f3, hence, a minute improvement
in the Knight's position was effected. Most
players would not even consider trying to
"improve" the positioning of such a piece,
which looked pretty darn good sitting on f3.

In addition to the two pawns, Black also
gained several(?) tempos with which to
centralize his King-- which was well back.

The error seems to have been a simple
miscalculation-- missing White's Bishop
retreat at the very end-- B-d2. This reminds
me of so many comments regarding world
champion Alekhine; it was noted that many
of his combinations had a "killer move" at
the tail end, which is ever so easy to
overlook. Instead of playing routinely as
in a famous Larry Evans quote ("Here, nine
out of ten grandmasters would have..."), the
world champion actually calculated what
would happen if Black were to grab to h-
pawn, and correctly concluded it would
give Black indigestion.

-- help bot

Date: 27 Mar 2008 08:19:25
From:
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 27, 2:47=A0am, "Freelancer71" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Can anyone explain how/why Fischer lost is bishop in the first game of his=

> match against Spassky in 1972?
> The fact that a bishop capturing the h2 or a2 pawn and getting trapped aft=
er
> g3 or b3 is trivial. Everyone knows that. Did he really think he had chanc=
es
> after sacrificing the bishop for two (or three?) pawns?

The Soviet GM Igor Bondarevsky said:

"I think there are three reasons:
"1. The american doesn't like to play positions without counter-
chances, aiming only for a draw. He always tries to change the course
of events, to obtain play of his own.
"2. Fischer's intuitive grasp of position is not without flaws. On
this occation it failed to indicate to him that taking the pawn gives
White enormous winning chances ...
"3. Fischer apparently miscalculated in the variation with the final
move 35.Bd2!, and yet the calculation was fairly simple. Here is a
vivid example to smash the myth of him being a computer."

I'm not sure how valid Bondarevsky's comments are, but thought they
were worth presenting.

Date: 27 Mar 2008 22:37:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 28, 12:06 am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:

> There is also the problem that Fischer had caused all these problems -
> postponements, the room, Kissinger, Slater - and the first game was
> really really dull up to move 28. When he saw that there was =BD a
> chance to make the game interesting he took it.

That is not a very good theory because if you
really want to make a chess game "interesting",
the last thing you would do is wait until you are
in such an ending and *only then* do something
crazy!

The opening phase is where you make such
decisions, but I don't think Bobby Fischer even
had a risky/unsound line as Black against 1. d4
in his repertoire; he generally played a KID if he
wanted a decisive game, I think. If he was okay
with a draw, it makes no difference whether the
game was interesting or dull, just so long as he
knew he would get White in the /next game/.

The most recent game of Boris Spassky's
I've seen had him "milking" a tiny advantage
against GM Portish-- who fell apart and lost in
what many folks would call a dull, boring, very
drawish position. The thing is, a game does
not draw itself; you have to play well to *earn*
such draws. And if you can't do that, then it
is really silly to fault BS for simplifying as
White, just as it is silly to fault him for
playing the King's Gambit and being behind
by a pawn the whole game (yet winning
anyway).

By the way, the "room" problem did not
occur until *after* this particular game, so it
is silly to toss that in as a reason for him
blundering. If anything, the actions of the
other two (Mr. Slater and Mr. Kissinger)
would argue for accurate, not reckless play
on GM Fischer's part. The search for off-
the-board causes reveals a desperate need
to avoid facing the fact that even BF was
human; that even he occasionally mis-
calculated or was simply outplayed; but as
even GM Fischer himself admitted...

"Some days you give a (chess) lesson,
and some days you get a lesson".

-- help bot

Date: 27 Mar 2008 21:06:20
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 27, 3:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 27, 2:47 am, "Freelancer71" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain how/why Fischer lost is bishop in the first game of h=
is
> > match against Spassky in 1972?
> > The fact that a bishop capturing the h2 or a2 pawn and getting trapped a=
fter
> > g3 or b3 is trivial. Everyone knows that. Did he really think he had cha=
nces
> > after sacrificing the bishop for two (or three?) pawns?
>
> The Soviet GM Igor Bondarevsky said:
>
> "I think there are three reasons:
> "1. The american doesn't like to play positions without counter-
> chances, aiming only for a draw. He always tries to change the course
> of events, to obtain play of his own.
> "2. Fischer's intuitive grasp of position is not without flaws. On
> this occation it failed to indicate to him that taking the pawn gives
> White enormous winning chances ...
> "3. Fischer apparently miscalculated in the variation with the final
> move 35.Bd2!, and yet the calculation was fairly simple. Here is a
> vivid example to smash the myth of him being a computer."
>
> I'm not sure how valid Bondarevsky's comments are, but thought they
> were worth presenting.

There is also the problem that Fischer had caused all these problems -
postponements, the room, Kissinger, Slater - and the first game was
really really dull up to move 28. When he saw that there was =BD a
chance to make the game interesting he took it.

Date: 26 Mar 2008 23:50:03
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

Or was it just a mistake ?

Date: 27 Mar 2008 18:27:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 27, 5:27 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 27, 9:36 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Only Strong players like Help Bot and Skoop are able to beat the
> > Beginner Level as they play nice strategies to win the games.
>
> Anyone rated above 1100 can beat the pants off Beginner level again
> and again and again!

That claim is ridiculous. The program plays
reasonably well in the middle game, and only
*if* such a player somehow survived to the
endgame would he find himself at a significant
advantage.

Personally, I think I could beat a roomful of
USCF 1100 players in a simultaneous, while
taking the GetClub program too lightly has
sometimes resulted in draws or even a rare
loss, now and then. Although I would prefer
to have real players with real ratings to go by,
if I had to guess I would put the Beginner
level at somewhere nearer USCF 1500 than
USCF 1100-- maybe even higher, since the
glaring weakness in the endgame is quite
irrelevant unless a player is strong enough
to successfully exploit it.

Now here is the problem: there is no set
time limit on the human opponent at Get
Club, so a weak player can think as long
as he likes, and that means the program
is getting short shrift. I expect that if we
could equalize the thinking times, even
GetClub's Beginner level would rise to
a level closer to 2000 USCF, merely by
being a Pentium-class computer and not
a human.

-- help bot

Date: 27 Mar 2008 18:14:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 27, 10:36 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> Once I played a game with Beginner Level.
>
> In 4 moves my Bishop was gone.
>
> After that in next 2 Moves Beginner took my King. And I lost the game
> to Beginner in just 6 Moves.

Since capturing the King is not legal in
chess, you really lost in just five moves--
the point where your King was *about* to
be captured on the next move.

That is, unless you could have escaped.

-- help bot

Date: 27 Mar 2008 14:27:33
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 27, 9:36 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> Only Strong players like Help Bot and Skoop are able to beat the
> Beginner Level as they play nice strategies to win the games.

Anyone rated above 1100 can beat the pants off Beginner level again
and again and again!

Date: 27 Mar 2008 07:36:15
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Why Fischer dropped his bishop?

On 27, 11:50=A0am, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> Or was it just a mistake ?

Once I played a game with Beginner Level.

In 4 moves my Bishop was gone.

After that in next 2 Moves Beginner took my King. And I lost the game
to Beginner in just 6 Moves.

Beginner never does mistake. But it always plays with same
intelligence. Thats the advantage of Computers then never get tired
and they can play continiously.

Only Strong players like Help Bot and Skoop are able to beat the
Beginner Level as they play nice strategies to win the games.

Bye
Sanny

GetClub Site Link Removed (As some people do not like that.)