Usuari:CarlesMartin/Labor6
El començament desastrós de Fischer modifica
Partida 1: Spasski 1 Fischer 0 (Nimzoíndia) modifica
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |        | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Després d'una sèrie de canvis en una plàcida defensa Nimzoíndia, es va assolir la posició del diagrama després de 29.b5. Semblava un final de taules mortes, i ningú s'hagués sorprès si els jugadors haguessin acordat taules en aquest moment.[1][2][3]
Remarcablement, Fischer cometé una greu errada amb 29...Axh2?,[4] un moviment que pocs jugadors per damunt del nivell de mestre haurien jugat a la vista de l'òbvia 30.g3 i el fet que el peó-h no pot salvar l'alfil, que queda atrapat.[3] A canvi de l'alfil perdut, les negres només obtenen dos peons (vegeu valor relatiu de les peces d'escacs). Segons Garri Kaspàrov, Fischer probablement tenia previst 30...h5 31.Re2 h4 32.Rf3 h3 33.Rg4 Ag1, però no va veure que 34.Rxh3 Axf2 mantenia l'alfil atrapat.[5] Svetozar Gligorić va testificar que Fischer va fer el seu moviment molt ràpidament, i pensava que simplement no va veure el moviment intermig 35.Ad2, que evita que l'alfil negre s'escapi via la casella e1.[6] Anatoli Kàrpov va suggerir que Spasski tenia por de Fischer i volia demostrar que podia entaular amb les blanques, mentre que Fischer volia evitar que el joc es dirigís cap a un empat trist.[7] A causa de les característiques inusuals de la posició, Fischer tenia bones possibilitats de taules, a despit del fet de tenir només dos peons a canvi de l'alfil.[8] De tota manera, la posició va esdevenir sense esperances deprés que va fer com a mínim una jugada dolenta més després de l'ajornament, que es va produir després del moviment número 40.[9] Fischer hagués pogut mantenir la partida en taules si hagués encertat la jugada en el seu moviment 39è o 40è.[10] Va acabar abandonant en el moviment 56.
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 1;[11] defensa Nimzoíndia (ECO E56)
1.d4 Cf6 2.c4 e6 3.Cf3 d5 4.Cc3 Ab4 5.e3 0-0 6.Ad3 c5 7.0-0 Cc6 8.a3 Aa5 9.Ce2 dxc4 10.Axc4 Ab6 11.dxc5 Dxd1 12.Txd1 Axc5 13.b4 Ae7 14.Ab2 Ad7 15.Tac1 Tfd8 16.Ced4 Cxd4 17.Cxd4 Aa4 18.Ab3 Axb3 19.Cxb3 Txd1+ 20.Txd1 Tc8 21.Rf1 Rf8 22.Re2 Ce4 23.Tc1 Txc1 24.Axc1 f6 25.Ca5 Cd6 26.Rd3 Ad8 27.Cc4 Ac7 28.Cxd6 Axd6 29.b5 (see diagram) Axh2 30.g3 h5 31.Re2 h4 32.Rf3 Re7 33.Rg2 hxg3 34.fxg3 Axg3 35.Rxg3 Rd6 36.a4 Rd5 37.Aa3 Re4 38.Ac5 a6 39.b6 f5 40.Rh4 f4 41.exf4 Rxf4 42.Rh5 Rf5 43.Ae3 Re4 44.Af2 Rf5 45.Ah4 e5 46.Ag5 e4 47.Ae3 Rf6 48.Rg4 Re5 49.Rg5 Rd5 50.Rf5 a5 51.Af2 g5 52.Rxg5 Rc4 53.Rf5 Rb4 54.Rxe4 Rxa4 55.Rd5 Rb5 56.Rd6 1–0
Partida 2: Fischer no es presenta modifica
Després de la seva derrota Fischer va fer més peticions als organitzadors, inclosa la de llevar totes les càmeres. Quan les seves peticions foren rebutjades, va decidir no comparèixer a la segona partida, cosa que va suposar una victòria per incompareixença per Spasski. La seva apel·lació fou desestimada. Kàrpov especulà que aquesta derrota per incompareixença era en realitat un cop mestre de Fischer, dissenyat específicament per desestabilitzar Spasski.[7]
Amb el marcador provisional 2–0 a favor de Spasski, molts observadors creien que el matx ja estava acabat, i que Fischer deixaria Islàndia. No ho va fer, però, una decisió que alguns atribueixen a una altra trucada telefònica de Kissinger i un diluvi de telegrames a Fischer.[12] Spasski, a causa del seu esperit esportiu i del seu respecte i simpatia per Fischer, va accedir a jugar la tercera partida en una petita habitació darrere de l'escenari, fora de la vista dels espectadors. Segons Pal Benko i Burt Hochberg, aquesta concessió fou un error psicològic de Spasski.[13]
El punt d'inflexió modifica
Partida 3: Spasski 0 Fischer 1 (Benoni moderna) modifica
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |              | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Aquesta partida va ser el punt d'inflexió del matx. Lombardy va escriure, sobre el començament de la partida:[14]
When Bobby arrived, Boris was, as usual, seated at the table. Bobby did not sit down but went around inspecting the television equipment, and at this point Boris betrayed indignant agitation. Bobby tested the remote-control camera for possible sources of noise. Schmid watched the proceedings and became anxious. He felt the match once more was in jeopardy. Schmid took Bobby by the arm in an effort to get him to the playing table. Bobby brushed off Schmid's entreaties. "The American grandmaster permitted himself great liberty in his remarks, which were very disagreeable to hear," Spassky said later. Finally satisfied with the camera, Bobby settled down for the match.
After 11.Qc2 (see diagram), Fischer demonstrated his acute intuitive feel for the position with 11...Nh5!? Allowing White to shatter Black's kingside pawn structure looks antipositional, but Fischer's assessment that his kingside attack created significant counterplay proved correct.[15]
Surprised by Fischer's novelty, which he had gleaned from the Yugoslav grandmaster Dragoljub Velimirović, Spassky did not react in the best way.[16] In particular, his 18th move, weakening the light squares, was a mistake.[17]
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 3;[18] Benoni Defense (ECO A61)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.Nd2 Nbd7 8.e4 Bg7 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 Re8 11.Qc2 (see diagram) Nh5 12.Bxh5 gxh5 13.Nc4 Ne5 14.Ne3 Qh4 15.Bd2 Ng4 16.Nxg4 hxg4 17.Bf4 Qf6 18.g3 Bd7 19.a4 b6 20.Rfe1 a6 21.Re2 b5 22.Rae1 Qg6 23.b3 Re7 24.Qd3 Rb8 25.axb5 axb5 26.b4 c4 27.Qd2 Rbe8 28.Re3 h5 29.R3e2 Kh7 30.Re3 Kg8 31.R3e2 Bxc3 32.Qxc3 Rxe4 33.Rxe4 Rxe4 34.Rxe4 Qxe4 35.Bh6 Qg6 36.Bc1 Qb1 37.Kf1 Bf5 38.Ke2 Qe4+ 39.Qe3 Qc2+ 40.Qd2 Qb3 41.Qd4 Bd3+ 0–1
Partida 4: Fischer ½ Spassky ½ (Sicilian Sozin) modifica
Fischer as White played the Sozin Variation against Spassky's Sicilian Defence. Spassky played a pawn sacrifice, gaining a strong attack, but failed to convert it into a win,[19] the game ending in a draw.
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 4;[20] Sicilian Defence, Sozin (ECO B88)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3 Be7 8.Be3 0-0 9.0-0 a6 10.f4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b5 12.a3 Bb7 13.Qd3 a5 14.e5 dxe5 15.fxe5 Nd7 16.Nxb5 Nc5 17.Bxc5 Bxc5+ 18.Kh1 Qg5 19.Qe2 Rad8 20.Rad1 Rxd1 21.Rxd1 h5 22.Nd6 Ba8 23.Bc4 h4 24.h3 Be3 25.Qg4 Qxe5 26.Qxh4 g5 27.Qg4 Bc5 28.Nb5 Kg7 29.Nd4 Rh8 30.Nf3 Bxf3 31.Qxf3 Bd6 32.Qc3 Qxc3 33.bxc3 Be5 34.Rd7 Kf6 35.Kg1 Bxc3 36.Be2 Be5 37.Kf1 Rc8 38.Bh5 Rc7 39.Rxc7 Bxc7 40.a4 Ke7 41.Ke2 f5 42.Kd3 Be5 43.c4 Kd6 44.Bf7 Bg3 45.c5+ ½–½
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 5: Spassky 0 Fischer 1 (Nimzo–Indian) modifica
Another Nimzo–Indian, this time the Hübner Variation: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d6.[21] Fischer rebuffed Spassky's attempt to attack and obtained a blocked position where Spassky was saddled with weak pawns and his bishop pair had no prospects.[22] After 26 moves, Spassky faced the position in the diagram, in which he blundered with 27.Qc2??, and resigned after Fischer's 27...Bxa4! After 28.Qxa4 Qxe4, Black's dual threats of 29...Qxg2# and 29...Qxe1# would decide; alternatively, 28.Qd2 (or 28.Qb1) Bxd1 29.Qxd1 Qxe4 30.Qd2 a4 wins.
Thus Fischer had drawn level (the score was now 2½ to 2½) in the match, although FIDE rules stipulated that the champion retained the title if the match ended in a tie (after 24 games).
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 5;[23] Nimzo–Indian Defence (ECO E41)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d6 8.e4 e5 9.d5 Ne7 10.Nh4 h6 11.f4 Ng6 12.Nxg6 fxg6 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.Be3 b6 15.0-0 0-0 16.a4 a5 17.Rb1 Bd7 18.Rb2 Rb8 19.Rbf2 Qe7 20.Bc2 g5 21.Bd2 Qe8 22.Be1 Qg6 23.Qd3 Nh5 24.Rxf8+ Rxf8 25.Rxf8+ Kxf8 26.Bd1 Nf4 (see diagram) 27.Qc2 Bxa4 0–1
The juggernaut continues modifica
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 6: Fischer 1 Spassky 0 (QGD Tartakower) modifica
Fischer, who almost always opened with 1.e4, played 1.c4 for only the third time in a serious game.[24] The game transposed to the Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower Variation. After 14.Bb5!? (introduced in Furman vs. Geller, Moscow 1970),[25] Spassky responded with 14...a6?! (Geller had previously shown Spassky 14...Qb7!, the move with which he later beat Jan Timman at Hilversum 1973,[25] but Spassky apparently forgot about it.)[26] After 26.f5, White had a crushing attack.
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 6;[27] Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower Variation (ECO D59)
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.0-0 Ra7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.e4 d4 21.f4 Qe7 22.e5 Rb8 23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5 exf5 27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1 Qd8 29.Qg3 Re7 30.h4 Rbb7 31.e6 Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8 33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8 36.Bd3 Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 (see diagram) 38.Rxf6 gxf6 39.Rxf6 Kg8 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 1–0
After this game, Spassky joined the audience in applauding Fischer's win.[28] This astounded Fischer, who called his opponent "a true sportsman".[29] Spassky later called it the best game of the match. This win gave Fischer the lead for the first time in the match.[30]
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 7: Spassky ½ Fischer ½ (Sicilian Najdorf) modifica
Spassky played 1.e4 for the first time in the match.[28][31] Fischer defended aggressively with his favorite Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Najdorf Sicilian. He consolidated his extra pawn and reached a winning endgame, but then played carelessly, allowing Spassky to salvage a draw.[32] In the final position, Fischer had two extra pawns but had to execute a draw by perpetual check in order to escape being checkmated by Spassky's two rooks and knight.[33]
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 7;[34] Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation (ECO B97)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Nb3 Qa3 10.Bd3 Be7 11.0-0 h6 12.Bh4 Nxe4 13.Nxe4 Bxh4 14.f5 exf5 15.Bb5+ axb5 16.Nxd6+ Kf8 17.Nxc8 Nc6 18.Nd6 Rd8 19.Nxb5 Qe7 20.Qf4 g6 21.a4 Bg5 22.Qc4 Be3+ 23.Kh1 f4 24.g3 g5 25.Rae1 Qb4 26.Qxb4+ Nxb4 27.Re2 Kg7 28.Na5 b6 29.Nc4 Nd5 30.Ncd6 Bc5 31.Nb7 Rc8 32.c4 Ne3 33.Rf3 Nxc4 34.gxf4 g4 35.Rd3 h5 36.h3 Na5 37.N7d6 Bxd6 38.Nxd6 Rc1+ 39.Kg2 Nc4 40.Ne8+ Kg6 41.h4 f6 42.Re6 Rc2+ 43.Kg1 Kf5 44.Ng7+ Kxf4 45.Rd4+ Kg3 46.Nf5+ Kf3 47.Ree4 Rc1+ 48.Kh2 Rc2+ 49.Kg1 ½–½
Partida 8: Fischer 1 Spassky 0 (English Opening) modifica
Fischer again played 1.c4; the game remained an English Opening rather than transposing to another opening as in game 6. Spassky gave up an exchange for little compensation in the way of a positional advantage, and it is unclear whether it was a sacrifice or a blunder. Fischer won, putting him ahead 5–3.
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 8;[35] English Opening (ECO A39)
1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 g6 5.Bg2 Bg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.d4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nxd4 9.Qxd4 d6 10.Bg5 Be6 11.Qf4 Qa5 12.Rac1 Rab8 13.b3 Rfc8 14.Qd2 a6 15.Be3 b5 16.Ba7 bxc4 17.Bxb8 Rxb8 18.bxc4 Bxc4 19.Rfd1 Nd7 20.Nd5 Qxd2 21.Nxe7+ Kf8 22.Rxd2 Kxe7 23.Rxc4 Rb1+ 24.Bf1 Nc5 25.Kg2 a5 26.e4 Ba1 27.f4 f6 28.Re2 Ke6 29.Rec2 Bb2 30.Be2 h5 31.Rd2 Ba3 32.f5+ gxf5 33.exf5+ Ke5 34.Rcd4 Kxf5 35.Rd5+ Ke6 36.Rxd6+ Ke7 37.Rc6 1–0
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 9: Spassky ½ Fischer ½ (QGD Semi-Tarrasch) modifica
The game was delayed when Spassky took time off (pleading illness). The opening was a Semi-Tarrasch Variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined. Fischer played a theoretical novelty on the ninth move, and the game ended in a quiet draw after just 29 moves. The players' behavior, however, provided for much entertainment, with Fischer rocking back and forth in his chair and Spassky imitating him, which one spectator described as "two dead men dancing".
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 9;[36] Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch (ECO D41)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.Bc4 b5 (see diagram) 10.Bd3 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 a6 13.a4 0-0 14.Qc3 Bb7 15.axb5 axb5 16.0-0 Qb6 17.Rab1 b4 18.Qd2 Nxd4 19.Nxd4 Qxd4 20.Rxb4 Qd7 21.Qe3 Rfd8 22.Rfb1 Qxd3 23.Qxd3 Rxd3 24.Rxb7 g5 25.Rb8+ Rxb8 26.Rxb8+ Kg7 27.f3 Rd2 28.h4 h6 29.hxg5 ½–½
Partida 10: Fischer 1 Spassky 0 (Ruy Lopez Breyer) modifica
Fischer played the Ruy Lopez, an opening on which he was a great expert.[37] He initiated a dangerous attack on Spassky's king with 26.Bb3!, suddenly placing Black in a critical situation.[38][39] Spassky sacrificed the exchange for a pawn, reaching a sharp endgame where his two connected passed pawns gave almost sufficient compensation for Fischer's small material advantage.[40] Spassky had drawing chances, but played inexactly, and Fischer won the game with precise play.[39][41]
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 10;[42] Ruy Lopez, Breyer Variation (ECO C95)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.b4 Bf8 14.a4 Nb6 15.a5 Nbd7 16.Bb2 Qb8 17.Rb1 c5 18.bxc5 dxc5 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Nxe5 Qxe5 21.c4 Qf4 22.Bxf6 Qxf6 23.cxb5 Red8 24.Qc1 Qc3 25.Nf3 Qxa5 26.Bb3 axb5 27.Qf4 Rd7 28.Ne5 Qc7 29.Rbd1 Re7 30.Bxf7+ Rxf7 31.Qxf7+ Qxf7 32.Nxf7 Bxe4 33.Rxe4 Kxf7 34.Rd7+ Kf6 35.Rb7 Ra1+ 36.Kh2 Bd6+ 37.g3 b4 38.Kg2 h5 39.Rb6 Rd1 40.Kf3 Kf7 41.Ke2 Rd5 42.f4 g6 43.g4 hxg4 44.hxg4 g5 45.f5 Be5 46.Rb5 Kf6 47.Rexb4 Bd4 48.Rb6+ Ke5 49.Kf3 Rd8 50.Rb8 Rd7 51.R4b7 Rd6 52.Rb6 Rd7 53.Rg6 Kd5 54.Rxg5 Be5 55.f6 Kd4 56.Rb1 1–0
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 11: Spassky 1 Fischer 0 (Sicilian Najdorf) modifica
This game was a dramatic win for Spassky, his first since Games 1 and 2. As in Partida 7, Fischer essayed his favorite Poisoned Pawn Variation; Spassky surprised him with the startling 14.Nb1 (given !! by many annotators at the time), retreating the knight to its starting position.[43] Although later analysis showed that the move was only sufficient for equality if Black responded correctly, Fischer did not.[44] After inferior defense by Fischer, Spassky trapped Fischer's queen and handed him his only defeat ever as Black in the Poisoned Pawn.[45]
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 11;[46] Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation (ECO B97)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Nb3 Qa3 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Be2 h5 12.0-0 Nc6 13.Kh1 Bd7 (see diagram) 14.Nb1 Qb4 15.Qe3 d5 16.exd5 Ne7 17.c4 Nf5 18.Qd3 h4 19.Bg4 Nd6 20.N1d2 f5 21.a3 Qb6 22.c5 Qb5 23.Qc3 fxg4 24.a4 h3 25.axb5 hxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Rh3 27.Qf6 Nf5 28.c6 Bc8 29.dxe6 fxe6 30.Rfe1 Be7 31.Rxe6 1–0
Partida 12: Fischer ½ Spassky ½ (QGD Orthodox) modifica
A quiet Queen's Gambit Declined, the game ended in an opposite-colored bishops endgame draw after 55 moves.
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 12;[47] Queen's Gambit Declined (ECO D55)
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 0-0 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Rc1 c6 9.Bd3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5 11.Bd3 a6 12.a4 bxa4 13.Nxa4 Qa5 14.Nd2 Bb4 15.Nc3 c5 16.Nb3 Qd8 17.0-0 cxd4 18.Nxd4 Bb7 19.Be4 Qb8 20.Bg3 Qa7 21.Nc6 Bxc6 22.Bxc6 Rac8 23.Na4 Rfd8 24.Bf3 a5 25.Rc6 Rxc6 26.Bxc6 Rc8 27.Bf3 Qa6 28.h3 Qb5 29.Be2 Qc6 30.Bf3 Qb5 31.b3 Be7 32.Be2 Qb4 33.Ba6 Rc6 34.Bd3 Nc5 35.Qf3 Rc8 36.Nxc5 Bxc5 37.Rc1 Rd8 38.Bc4 Qd2 39.Rf1 Bb4 40.Bc7 Rd7 41.Qc6 Qc2 42.Be5 Rd2 43.Qa8+ Kh7 44.Bxf6 gxf6 45.Qf3 f5 46.g4 Qe4 47.Kg2 Kg6 48.Rc1 Ba3 49.Ra1 Bb4 50.Rc1 Be7 51.gxf5+ exf5 52.Re1 Rxf2+ 53.Kxf2 Bh4+ 54.Ke2 Qxf3+ 55.Kxf3 Bxe1 ½–½
Partida 13: Spassky 0 Fischer 1 (Alekhine's Defence) modifica
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Fischer avoided the Sicilian Defence, with which he had lost Partida 11, instead preferring Alekhine's Defence. The game swung one way, then another, and was finally adjourned at move 42 with Fischer having an edge in a sharp position but no clear win. The Soviet team's analysis convinced them that the position was drawn. Fischer stayed up until 8 a.m. the following morning analyzing it (the resumption being at 2:30 p.m.). He had not found a win either. Amazingly, he managed to set traps for Spassky, who fell into them and lost. Spassky's seconds were stunned, and Spassky himself refused to leave the board for a long time after the game was over, unable to believe the result. He remarked, "It is very strange. How can one lose with the opponent's only rook locked in completely at g8?"[48]
Former World Champion Mikhaïl Botvínnik said that this game made a particularly strong impression on him. He called it "the highest creative achievement of Fischer". He resolved a drawish opposite-colored bishops endgame by sacrificing his bishop and trapping his own rook. "Then five passed pawns struggled with the white rook. Nothing similar had been seen before in chess".[49]
David Bronstein said "Of all the games from the match, the 13th appeals to me most of all. When I play through the game I still cannot grasp the innermost motive behind this or that plan or even individual move. Like an enigma, it still teases my imagination."[50]
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 13;[51] Alekhine's Defence, Modern Variation (ECO B04)
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 Nb6 6.Bb3 Bg7 7.Nbd2 0-0 8.h3 a5 9.a4 dxe5 10.dxe5 Na6 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Qe2 Qe8 13.Ne4 Nbxa4 14.Bxa4 Nxa4 15.Re1 Nb6 16.Bd2 a4 17.Bg5 h6 18.Bh4 Bf5 19.g4 Be6 20.Nd4 Bc4 21.Qd2 Qd7 22.Rad1 Rfe8 23.f4 Bd5 24.Nc5 Qc8 25.Qc3 e6 26.Kh2 Nd7 27.Nd3 c5 28.Nb5 Qc6 29.Nd6 Qxd6 30.exd6 Bxc3 31.bxc3 f6 32.g5 hxg5 33.fxg5 f5 34.Bg3 Kf7 35.Ne5+ Nxe5 36.Bxe5 b5 37.Rf1 Rh8 38.Bf6 a3 39.Rf4 a2 40.c4 Bxc4 41.d7 Bd5 42.Kg3 Ra3+ 43.c3 Rha8 44.Rh4 e5 45.Rh7+ Ke6 46.Re7+ Kd6 47.Rxe5 Rxc3+ 48.Kf2 Rc2+ 49.Ke1 Kxd7 50.Rexd5+ Kc6 51.Rd6+ Kb7 52.Rd7+ Ka6 53.R7d2 Rxd2 54.Kxd2 b4 55.h4 Kb5 56.h5 c4 57.Ra1 gxh5 58.g6 h4 59.g7 h3 60.Be7 Rg8 61.Bf8 (see diagram) h2 62.Kc2 Kc6 63.Rd1 b3+ 64.Kc3 h1=Q 65.Rxh1 Kd5 66.Kb2 f4 67.Rd1+ Ke4 68.Rc1 Kd3 69.Rd1+ Ke2 70.Rc1 f3 71.Bc5 Rxg7 72.Rxc4 Rd7 73.Re4+ Kf1 74.Bd4 f2 0–1
When Spassky and Fischer shook hands, many in the audience thought that they had agreed to a draw, thinking that 75.Rf4 draws. But 75...Rxd4! 76.Rxd4 Ke2 wins; 75.Be5 Rd1 76.Kxb3 Re1 also wins for Black.[52]
Endgame modifica
The next seven games (Games 14 through 20) were drawn. Fischer was unable to get the initiative. Spassky was choosing lines that Fischer was unable to break.[53] With a three-point lead, Fischer was content to inch towards the title, and Spassky seemed resigned to his fate. The off-the-board antics continued, including a lawsuit against Fischer for damages by Chester Fox, who had filming rights to the match (Fischer had objected to what he said were noticeable camera noises, and the Icelandic hosts had reluctantly – they were to share in film revenues along with the two contestants – removed the television cameras), a Fischer demand to remove the first seven rows of spectators (eventually, three rows were cleared), and Soviet claims that Fischer was using electronic and chemical devices to 'control' Spassky, resulting in an Icelandic police sweep of the hall.
Partida 14: Fischer ½ Spassky ½ (QGD Harrwitz) modifica
The game was postponed at Spassky's request.[54] Fischer was again White in a Queen's Gambit Declined. He played carelessly and lost a pawn on move 21. However, Spassky blundered it back on move 27 and the game settled into a 40-move draw.[55]
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 14;[56] Queen's Gambit Declined (ECO D37)
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Nc6 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Be2 Bxc5 10.0-0 Be6 11.Rc1 Rc8 12.a3 h6 13.Bg3 Bb6 14.Ne5 Ne7 15.Na4 Ne4 16.Rxc8 Bxc8 17.Nf3 Bd7 18.Be5 Bxa4 19.Qxa4 Nc6 20.Bf4 Qf6 21.Bb5 Qxb2 22.Bxc6 Nc3 23.Qb4 Qxb4 24.axb4 bxc6 25.Be5 Nb5 26.Rc1 Rc8 27.Nd4 f6 28.Bxf6 Bxd4 29.Bxd4 Nxd4 30.exd4 Rb8 31.Rxc6 Rxb4 32.Kf1 Rxd4 33.Ra6 Kf7 34.Rxa7+ Kf6 35.Rd7 h5 36.Ke2 g5 37.Ke3 Re4+ 38.Kd3 Ke6 39.Rg7 Kf6 40.Rd7 Ke6 ½–½
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 15: Spassky ½ Fischer ½ (Sicilian Najdorf) modifica
Fischer returned to the Najdorf Sicilian, but played the main line rather than the Poisoned Pawn Variation with which he had lost Partida 11. At move 13, Fischer sacrificed a pawn for counterplay. Spassky accepted it, and later a second pawn, but allowed Fischer a very strong attack.[57] Spassky, on the brink of disaster, "found miraculous replies while in time pressure" and Fischer was only able to achieve a draw by threefold repetition after 43 moves.[58] Two years later, Yugoslav grandmaster Dragoljub Velimirović improved on Spassky's play with the piece sacrifice 14.Bxb5!?, winning a crushing victory in Velimirović vs. Al Kazzaz, Nice Olympiad 1974.[59][60][61] Black in turn later improved on Fischer's 12...0-0-0 with 12...b4.[62]
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 15;[63] Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation (ECO B99)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Bd3 b5 11.Rhe1 Bb7 12.Qg3 0-0-0 13.Bxf6 Nxf6 14.Qxg7 Rdf8 15.Qg3 b4 16.Na4 Rhg8 17.Qf2 Nd7 18.Kb1 Kb8 19.c3 Nc5 20.Bc2 bxc3 21.Nxc3 Bf6 22.g3 h5 23.e5 dxe5 24.fxe5 Bh8 25.Nf3 Rd8 26.Rxd8+ Rxd8 27.Ng5 Bxe5 28.Qxf7 Rd7 29.Qxh5 Bxc3 30.bxc3 Qb6+ 31.Kc1 Qa5 32.Qh8+ Ka7 33.a4 Nd3+ 34.Bxd3 Rxd3 35.Kc2 Rd5 36.Re4 Rd8 37.Qg7 Qf5 38.Kb3 Qd5+ 39.Ka3 Qd2 40.Rb4 Qc1+ 41.Rb2 Qa1+ 42.Ra2 Qc1+ 43.Rb2 Qa1+ ½–½
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 16: Fischer ½ Spassky ½ (Ruy Lopez Exchange) modifica
Fischer played the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez, a favorite line of his.[64] Spassky defended well, and after a tactical flurry in the endgame, ended up with the nominal advantage of an extra pawn in a rook ending known to be an easy book draw.[65] Although a draw could have been agreed after move 34,[66] Spassky "used his symbolic material advantage for a little psychological torture", prolonging the game until move 60 before agreeing to a draw.[67]
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 16;[68] Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation (ECO C69)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.0-0 f6 6.d4 Bg4 7.dxe5 Qxd1 8.Rxd1 fxe5 9.Rd3 Bd6 10.Nbd2 Nf6 11.Nc4 Nxe4 12.Ncxe5 Bxf3 13.Nxf3 0-0 14.Be3 b5 15.c4 Rab8 16.Rc1 bxc4 17.Rd4 Rfe8 18.Nd2 Nxd2 19.Rxd2 Re4 20.g3 Be5 21.Rcc2 Kf7 22.Kg2 (see diagram) Rxb2 23.Kf3 c3 24.Kxe4 cxd2 25.Rxd2 Rb5 26.Rc2 Bd6 27.Rxc6 Ra5 28.Bf4 Ra4+ 29.Kf3 Ra3+ 30.Ke4 Rxa2 31.Bxd6 cxd6 32.Rxd6 Rxf2 33.Rxa6 Rxh2 34.Kf3 Rd2 35.Ra7+ Kf6 36.Ra6+ Ke7 37.Ra7+ Rd7 38.Ra2 Ke6 39.Kg2 Re7 40.Kh3 Kf6 41.Ra6+ Re6 42.Ra5 h6 43.Ra2 Kf5 44.Rf2+ Kg5 45.Rf7 g6 46.Rf4 h5 47.Rf3 Rf6 48.Ra3 Re6 49.Rf3 Re4 50.Ra3 Kh6 51.Ra6 Re5 52.Kh4 Re4+ 53.Kh3 Re7 54.Kh4 Re5 55.Rb6 Kg7 56.Rb4 Kh6 57.Rb6 Re1 58.Kh3 Rh1+ 59.Kg2 Ra1 60.Kh3 Ra4 ½–½
Partida 17: Spassky ½ Fischer ½ (Pirc Defence) modifica
Fischer played the Pirc Defence for the first time in his career.[69] The game ended in a draw by the threefold repetition rule.[70]
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 17;[71] Pirc Defence, Austrian Attack (ECO B09)
1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.dxc5 Qa5 7.Bd3 Qxc5 8.Qe2 0-0 9.Be3 Qa5 10.0-0 Bg4 11.Rad1 Nc6 12.Bc4 Nh5 13.Bb3 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Qxc3 15.f5 Nf6 16.h3 Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Na5 18.Rd3 Qc7 19.Bh6 Nxb3 20.cxb3 Qc5+ 21.Kh1 Qe5 22.Bxf8 Rxf8 23.Re3 Rc8 24.fxg6 hxg6 25.Qf4 Qxf4 26.Rxf4 Nd7 27.Rf2 Ne5 28.Kh2 Rc1 29.Ree2 Nc6 30.Rc2 Re1 31.Rfe2 Ra1 32.Kg3 Kg7 33.Rcd2 Rf1 34.Rf2 Re1 35.Rfe2 Rf1 36.Re3 a6 37.Rc3 Re1 38.Rc4 Rf1 39.Rdc2 Ra1 40.Rf2 Re1 41.Rfc2 g5 42.Rc1 Re2 43.R1c2 Re1 44.Rc1 Re2 45.R1c2 ½–½
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 18: Fischer ½ Spassky ½ (Sicilian Rauzer) modifica
The game opened with Sicilian Defence, Richter–Rauzer Attack, and like Partida 17, ended in a draw by threefold repetition.
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 18;[72] Sicilian Defence, Richter–Rauzer Attack (ECO B69)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 Bd7 9.f4 Be7 10.Nf3 b5 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Bd3 Qa5 13.Kb1 b4 14.Ne2 Qc5 15.f5 a5 16.Nf4 a4 17.Rc1 Rb8 18.c3 b3 19.a3 Ne5 20.Rhf1 Nc4 21.Bxc4 Qxc4 22.Rce1 Kd8 23.Ka1 Rb5 24.Nd4 Ra5 25.Nd3 Kc7 26.Nb4 h5 27.g3 Re5 28.Nd3 Rb8 29.Qe2 Ra5 30.fxe6 fxe6 31.Rf2 (see diagram) e5 32.Nf5 Bxf5 33.Rxf5 d5 34.exd5 Qxd5 35.Nb4 Qd7 36.Rxh5 Bxb4 37.cxb4 Rd5 38.Rc1+ Kb7 39.Qe4 Rc8 40.Rb1 Kb6 41.Rh7 Rd4 42.Qg6 Qc6 43.Rf7 Rd6 44.Qh6 Qf3 45.Qh7 Qc6 46.Qh6 Qf3 47.Qh7 Qc6 ½–½
Partida 19: Spassky ½ Fischer ½ (Alekhine's Defence) modifica
The second Alekhine's Defence of the match, the game ended in an uneventful draw after 40 moves.
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 19;[73] Alekhine's Defence, Modern Variation (ECO B05)
1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.0-0 Be7 7.h3 Bh5 8.c4 Nb6 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Be3 d5 11.c5 Bxf3 12.Bxf3 Nc4 13.b3 Nxe3 14.fxe3 b6 15.e4 c6 16.b4 bxc5 17.bxc5 Qa5 18.Nxd5 Bg5 19.Bh5 cxd5 20.Bxf7+ Rxf7 21.Rxf7 Qd2 22.Qxd2 Bxd2 23.Raf1 Nc6 24.exd5 exd5 25.Rd7 Be3+ 26.Kh1 Bxd4 27.e6 Be5 28.Rxd5 Re8 29.Re1 Rxe6 30.Rd6 Kf7 31.Rxc6 Rxc6 32.Rxe5 Kf6 33.Rd5 Ke6 34.Rh5 h6 35.Kh2 Ra6 36.c6 Rxc6 37.Ra5 a6 38.Kg3 Kf6 39.Kf3 Rc3+ 40.Kf2 Rc2+ ½–½
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Partida 20: Fischer ½ Spassky ½ (Sicilian Rauzer) modifica
Another Richter–Rauzer, Fischer was unable to make progress and Spassky got a better position. Fischer headed for a drawish endgame but Spassky twice avoided a draw by threefold repetition.[53] After 54 moves, Fischer made an incorrect claim of threefold repetition, but Spassky agreed to a draw anyway.[74] See Threefold repetition#Fischer versus Spassky.
Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 20;[75] Sicilian Defence, Richter–Rauzer Attack (ECO B68)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2 a6 8.0-0-0 Bd7 9.f4 Be7 10.Be2 0-0 11.Bf3 h6 12.Bh4 Nxe4 13.Bxe7 Nxd2 14.Bxd8 Nxf3 15.Nxf3 Rfxd8 16.Rxd6 Kf8 17.Rhd1 Ke7 18.Na4 Be8 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Nc5 Rb8 21.Rd3 a5 22.Rb3 b5 23.a3 a4 24.Rc3 Rd8 25.Nd3 f6 26.Rc5 Rb8 27.Rc3 g5 28.g3 Kd6 29.Nc5 g4 30.Ne4+ Ke7 31.Ne1 Rd8 32.Nd3 Rd4 33.Nef2 h5 34.Rc5 Rd5 35.Rc3 Nd4 36.Rc7+ Rd7 37.Rxd7+ Bxd7 38.Ne1 e5 39.fxe5 fxe5 40.Kd2 Bf5 41.Nd1 Kd6 42.Ne3 Be6 43.Kd3 Bf7 44.Kc3 Kc6 45.Kd3 Kc5 46.Ke4 Kd6 47.Kd3 Bg6+ 48.Kc3 Kc5 49.Nd3+ Kd6 50.Ne1 Kc6 51.Kd2 Kc5 52.Nd3+ Kd6 53.Ne1 Ne6 54.Kc3 Nd4 ½–½
Partida 21: Spassky 0 Fischer 1 (Sicilian Paulsen) modifica
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |  | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
This game turned out to be the last game. Fischer used a line of the Sicilian that he had never before played as Black, and further surprised Spassky with a novelty on move eight.[76][77] Spassky played badly in the endgame and the game was adjourned with a big advantage for Fischer. However, Fischer's 40th move was not the best; he should have played 40...Kg4! before ...h5 (his actual 40th move). Had Spassky sealed 41.Kh3! (preventing ...Kg4), he would have had drawing chances. However, his 41.Bd7? would have allowed Black to win with 41...Kg4 followed by pushing his h-pawn.[78] On setembre 1, the day scheduled for resumption of the game, arbiter Lothar Schmid informed Fischer and the audience that Spassky had resigned the game by telephone, making Fischer the winner of the match.[79]
Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 21;[80] Sicilian Defence, Kan (Paulsen) Variation (ECO B46)
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bd3 d5 8.exd5 exd5 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bd4 0-0 12.Qf3 Be6 13.Rfe1 c5 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Qxf6 gxf6 16.Rad1 Rfd8 17.Be2 Rab8 18.b3 c4 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Rxd5 Bxh2+ 21.Kxh2 Rxd5 22.Bxc4 Rd2 23.Bxa6 Rxc2 24.Re2 Rxe2 25.Bxe2 Rd8 26.a4 Rd2 27.Bc4 Ra2 28.Kg3 Kf8 29.Kf3 Ke7 30.g4 f5 31.gxf5 f6 32.Bg8 h6 33.Kg3 Kd6 34.Kf3 Ra1 35.Kg2 Ke5 36.Be6 Kf4 37.Bd7 Rb1 38.Be6 Rb2 39.Bc4 Ra2 40.Be6 h5 41.Bd7 0–1
The final score was 12½–8½ in favor of Fischer, making him the eleventh World Champion. Spassky won three games (including the forfeit in game 2), Fischer won seven games, and there were eleven draws.[81] The controversial Grandmaster Jan Donner criticized Spassky's telephone resignation in print, although Fischer had outright forfeited a game earlier in the match.[82]
Notes i referències modifica
- ↑ Evans & Smith, p. 26.
- ↑ Byrne and Nei, p. 82.
- ↑ 3,0 3,1 Alexander, p. 86.
- ↑ Garri Kaspàrov (2004b), Max Euwe & Jan Timman (2009), Dmitry Plisetsky & Sergey Voronkov (2005), Svetozar Gligoric (1972), i C.H.O'D. Alexander (1972) tots ells posen a la jugada un interrogant (que vol dir mala jugada, però no greu errada). Larry Evans i Ken Smith (1973) li assignen un "?!" (jugada dubtosa).
- ↑ Kaspàrov 2004b, p. 434.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 34.
- ↑ 7,0 7,1 Karpov 1990, p. 100.
- ↑ Robert Byrne va escriure, «La veritat és que, tot i que ara ell perd l'alfil per dos peons, podria haver fet taules si no fos pels seus errors posteriors.» Byrne i Nei 1974, p. 83.
- ↑ Mednis 1997, pp. 275–76.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972 (p. 34), Alexander 1972 (p. 86), i Evans & Smith 1973 (pàg. 29) tots ells diuen que el 40è moviment de Fischer va ser dolent, indicant que hauria pogut mantenir les taules si hagués encertat en aquell moment amb la jugada bona. Llibres més recents, de Kaspàrov 2004 (p. 435) i Plisetsky & Voronkov (p. 443) diuen que el 39è moviment va ser feble, indicant que era la seva darrera oportunitat d'entaular la partida amb 39...e5! Mednis 1997 (pp. 274–76) diu que el 37è moviment de Fischer era dolent, i pensava que havia deixat passar l'oportunitat de les taules amb 37...a6. Euwe i Timman (pp. 55–57), citant anàlisis de Friðrik Ólafsson i independentment de Jon Speelman diuen que Fischer podria haver forçat les taules després de 36.a4? amb 37...a6 o amb 39...e5.
Speelman va analitzar la posició en profunditat al seu llibre de 1980, Analysing the Endgame, pp. 74–80, prenent en compte les anàlisis prèvies d'altres autors. Va indicar que 29...Axh2 va ser un mal moviment, que donava a les blanques excel·lents oportunitats de victòria, sense cap compensació per les negres. De tota manera, la posició no estava perduda després d'aquest moment, sinó que només ho estigué després de dos errors més (37...Re4?! i 39...f5?).
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 1
- ↑ Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, pp. 99–100.
- ↑ Escriuen que "tingué un greu cost i efecte psicològic en Spasski". Pal Benko i Burt Hochberg, Winning with Chess Psychology, David McKay, 1991, p. 87. ISBN 0-8129-1866-5. Benko i Hochberg també citen Spasski dient després del matx, «La meva acceptació de la poc fonamentada petició de Fischer de jugar en una habitació tancada va ser un gran error psicològic.» Id., p. 92.
- ↑ "A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma" William Lombardy, 21 de gener de 1974, Bobby-Fischer.net
- ↑ Evans & Smith 1973, p. 40.
- ↑ A few weeks after the game, at the Skopje Olympiad, Gligorić improved on Spassky's play with 11.a4 Ne5 12.Qc2 Nh5 13.Bxh5 gxh5 (reaching the same position as after Black's 13th move in Spasski–Fischer, Partida 3) 14.Nd1! Qh4 15.Ne3 Ng4 16.Nxg4 hxg4 17.Nc4 with a substantial advantage. Soltis 2003, p. 266. Gligorić won in 38 moves in Gligorić vs. Kavalek, Skopje Olympiad 1972. ChessGames.com. Consultat el 2009-03-05.
- ↑ Evans & Smith 1973, pp. 40–42.
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 3
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, pp. 43–46.
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 4
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 48.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, pp. 47–49.
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 5
- ↑ The two prior occasions were at the 1970 Palma de Mallorca Interzonal, when Fischer played 1.c4 against Lev Polugaevsky and Oscar Panno. Gligorić 1972, p. 52.
- ↑ 25,0 25,1 D. Marović, Play the Queen's Gambit, Maxwell Macmillan Chess, 1991, p. 130. ISBN 1-85744-016-1.
- ↑ After Furman–Geller, Semyon Furman, Geller, Spassky, and Eduard Gufeld analyzed the game, and "Geller analyzed a plan associated with material sacrifices that would begin with the move 14...Qb7!" Geller was also one of Spassky's seconds for the match, and "during the preparation for the match they studied this position" (after 14.Bb5). Eduard Gufeld, "Inventors and Novelty-Makers", Chess Life, març 2001, p. 26.
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 6
- ↑ 28,0 28,1 Gligorić 1972, p. 55.
- ↑ Error de citació: Etiqueta
<ref>no vàlida; no s'ha proporcionat text per les refs nomenadesdarrach19720811 - ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 54.
- ↑ Byrne and Nei 1974, p. 112.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, pp. 58–59.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 59.
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 7
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 8
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 9
- ↑ Byrne and Nei, p. 106.
- ↑ Byrne and Nei, p. 133.
- ↑ 39,0 39,1 Gligorić 1972, p. 71.
- ↑ Byrne and Nei, p. 134.
- ↑ Byrne and Nei, p. 134–35.
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 10
- ↑ Mednis 1997, pp. 278–79.
- ↑ Mednis 1997, p. 279.
- ↑ Fischer games as Black in Poisoned Pawn. ChessGames.com. Consultat el 2009-02-28.
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 11
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 12
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 86. Gligoric wrote "KN1", using descriptive notation, which has been changed in the text to algebraic notation ("g8").
- ↑ Soltis 2003, p. 271.
- ↑ Plisetsky and Voronkov, p. 359.
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 13
- ↑ Soltis 2003, p. 275.
- ↑ 53,0 53,1 Gligorić 1972, p. 116.
- ↑ Error de citació: Etiqueta
<ref>no vàlida; no s'ha proporcionat text per les refs nomenadesGligorić 1972, p. 86 - ↑ Gligorić 1972, pp. 87–89.
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 14
- ↑ Gligorić, pp. 92–93.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, pp. 90–91.
- ↑ Raymond Keene and David Levy, The 1974 World Chess Olympiad, R.H.M. Press, 1975, p. 34. ISBN 0-89058-006.
- ↑ Velimirović vs. Al Kazzaz, Nice Olympiad 1974 (1–0, 28). ChessGames.com. Consultat el 2009-03-05.
- ↑ See also Gunawan vs. Adianto, Indonesia 1983 (1–0, 31). ChessGames.com. Consultat el 2009-03-05. But see Anderson vs. Gormally, British Championship 2007 (0–1, 73). ChessGames.com. Consultat el 2009-03-05.
- ↑ Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings (15th ed. 2008), Random House Puzzles & Games, p. 255. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7.
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 15
- ↑ Larry Kaufman, The Chess Advantage in Black and White, Random House Puzzles & Games, 2004, pp. 4–5. ISBN 981-293-571-3 Error en ISBN: suma de verificació no vàlida Plantilla:Please check ISBN.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, pp. 96–98.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 99.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 96.
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 16
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 102.
- ↑ Alexander, p. 132.
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 17
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 18
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 19
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 119.
- ↑ Fischer vs. Spasski, Partida 20
- ↑ Error de citació: Etiqueta
<ref>no vàlida; no s'ha proporcionat text per les refs nomenadesMednisp.xxviii - ↑ Byrne & Nei 1974, pp. 207–08.
- ↑ Gligorić 1972, p. 123.
- ↑ Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, pp. 192–93.
- ↑ Spasski vs. Fischer, Partida 21
- ↑ Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, p. 194.
- ↑ Euwe and Timman, p. 51.