Steve's Chess Pages
Fischer - Spassky 1972, Game 6
This page will thoroughly examine Game 6 of the famous Fischer - Spassky 1972 world championship chess match. Check periodically for updates.
This game is considered by many to be one of the best games ever played. Clearly, Fischer's surprise opening choice may have something to do with this. Others do not feel that this game deserves such high regard. I believe that this assessment does not give Fischer credit for playing simple and logical moves throughout the game -- something we should all aspire to. (See Nunn's comments after move 26.) Spassky, along with the audience, applauded Fischer following the game and considered it to be the best of the match. GM Tal calls it a brilliantly played game. I hope my compilation of commentary and analyis will enable you to decide for yourself.
The moves of the game follow below. The main line is in bold. Annotations will be added as time permits. All descriptive notation has been converted to algebraic. Below is an index of the annotators (see the bibliography at the bottom of the page):
SG: GM Svetozar Gligoric
Yaz: GM Yasser Seirawan
RF: GM Reuben Fine
JN: GM John Nunn
ME: GM Max Euwe
SR: GM Samuel Reshevsky
CA: C.H.O'D.Alexander
RB: GM Robert Byrne
IN: IM Ivo Nei
LE: GM Larry Evans
KS: NM Ken Smith
AK: GM A. Kotov
Tal: GM Mikhal Tal
NYT: Richard Roberts, with Harold C. Schonberg, Al Horowitz and Samuel Reshevsky.
RF:"Is Boris Gudunov?" With apologies to the eminent music critic Harold Schonberg whose sparkling comments on the game graced the New York Times every day, we borrow the [above] caption for the present game. Here, as so often, Spassky comes out of the opening with fairly obvious easy equality. Then Bobby poses some unexpected problem -- and he collapses. So the question remains: is he good enough or is he off form?
Fischer,R - Spassky,B [D59] Reykjavik (6), 23 July 1972
1.c4
SG: A surprise! Did the fourth game temporarily shake Fischer's confidence in his traditional 1.e4, or was it planned far in advance to search on a larger scale for deficiencies in the champion's opening repertoire. Fischer has tested this move only once before, in the Interzonal in Palma de Mallorca 1970, and that against Polugaevsky (who, as Black, likes the Sicilian). The game went 1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 c6 3.Bg2 d5. Fischer also opened 1.c4 against Panno in the last round of the same tournament but Panno resigned the game without replying.
1...e6
SG: A cautious approach. More ambitious is 1...e5, as Spassky sometimes used to play, but that would produce a Sicilian with colors reversed and that was not at all Black's idea!
2.Nf3 d5 3.d4
SG: Another surprise. Fischer never plays the Queen's Gambit as White, and one could rather expect a more reserved Reti system as his second choice. What has Fischer got in mind? Should Black try the Tarrasch Defense, or just the Orthodox? Well, the second choice looked safer, for Spassky had never lost a game with that line.
3...Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7
RF: The tried path. In other games Fischer played 4...Bb4 with great success.
5.Bg5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6
SG: Tartakower's variation was Spassky's favorite choice in many tournaments. Here he had one more reason for playing it: White developed his KN early and thus is deprived of any dangerous pressure against the Black d-pawn with Bf1-d2-f3 and Nge2, as in Portisch-Ivkov, Wijk ann Zee 1972. Fischer could expect Black's line, but who could expect Fischer to play against it?
Yaz: This defining moment in the opening shows Black's intention to fianchetto the c8-Bishop... this would reinforce the d5-pawn, extending Black's objective of giving the little fellow protection. The fianchetto has a further purpose as well. The b7-Bishop will have an influence over the e4-square once it occupies the long a8-h1 diagonal... The idea for the move ...b7-b6 belongs to Savielly Tartakower (1887-1956)... At the time game 6 was played, Spassky was known as the world's leading exponent of this variation.
8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6
JN: (?!) Surprised by Fischer's previous move, Spassky immediately commits an inaccuracy. The correct response was only discovered later: 14...Qb7!
Yaz: Black is falling in line with White's plans. (In the future, following this match, games will employ 14...Kf8!? or 14...Qf8!?, in bouth cases protecting the Queen, releasing the pin on the a3-f8 diagonal, and allowing Black to threaten ...c5-c4 to put his [pawn] majority to work.) But Boris Spassky is not to be faulted for the text because it contains a bit of poison. Because the a6-pawn is pinned to the unprotected a8-Rook, the threat to the b5-Bishop doesn't yet exist. Once the a8-Rook is protected, the b5-Bishop will be en prise -- French for "in capture" -- and will be forced to move. Black's little trick is the threat to protect the a8-Rook with ...Ra8-a7, which in turn would protect the e7-Queen. Black would then hold a double threat of ...a6xb5 and ...c5-c4, a big advantage.
15.dxc5 bxc5 16.0-0 Ra7
Yaz: (?!) A controversial move -- it leaves Black's Queen in an awkward pin on the a3-f8 diagonal... White's goal in 14.Bf1-b5 was to capture the b8-Knight, should it poke its head out. Therefore 16...Qb7 17.Ba4! leaves Black with problems concerning his c5-pawn. Black's best move would have been 16...Qa7!, which would have released him from the a3-f8 pin, defended the c5-pawn, and threatened the b5-Bishop. White could then consider the two retreats... 17.Ba4, or 17.Be2. [Yaz provides analysis, recommending 17.Be2.]
17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8
JN: This move has been criticised, but the alternatives proposed do not solve Black's problems, for example after 18...Nf6 19.Nb3 Nd7 White can just continue with 20.Rc3 and Rfc1, increasing the pressure against c5.
19.Nxe6
JN: (!) This and the next move are a perfect example of Fischer's style. Black has hanging pawns, and the traditional method of play against them is gradually to step up the pressure until Black is completely tied down to their defence. Fischer instead transforms the position by simply exchanging minor pieces. At first sight this is a poor trade for White, as the d4-knight appeared quite active (of course, it has to move, but it is also active on b3) and the e6-bishop had little scope. However, Fischer shows that this is the right decision. White's bishop becomes increasingly active, while Black's problems with his pawn structure are not over. Once again, Fischer finds a simple solution to an apparently tricky decision.
ME: (!) In combination with White's next move, very strong.
19...fxe6
20.e4
JN: (!) A necessary follow-up to the previous move, and one which presents Black with an awkward decision. He can try to keep his hanging pawns by 20...c4 or 20...Nf6 or he can play 20...dxe4, breaking up the pawns but making White exert some effort to regain the pawn. Finally, he can play 20...d4, as in the game, which has the defect of allowing White's bishop access to c4. Many annotators have criticised Spassky's decision, but this seems to be a case of "Well, Black lost, so we have to suggest an improvement somewhere." Had Spassky played one of the other moves and still lost, I am sure the annotators would have recommended 20...d4. The simple fact is that none of the alternatives is at all appealing, and the root of Black's problems lies much earlier in the game.
ME: (!) The most efficient way to attack the block of Black's centre Pawns.
AK: It is difficult to understand how a player of Spassky's calibre can make such a move. The Black pawns lose all value and the White Bishop gains a powerful diagonal. By playing 20...Nf6, though Black's position would still be worse, he would still have defensive chances. Now White gains a won position in several moves.
21.f4
JN: (!) Another forceful move. After f4 and e5, the knight will be restricted and the weak pawn on e6 fixed.
21...Qe7 22.e5 Rb8
JN: One common theme in Fischer's games is the superiority of bishop against knight (see [Fischer - Unzicker, Zurich, 1959]). Everybody knows that in an open position a bishop is generally slightly better than a knight, but Fischer showed that this applies to a wider range of positions than was previously thought. He was particularly skilful in endings of rook and bishop against rook and knight, and won a number of these.
23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5
SG: Now is the time to open the f-file, to penetrate with the heavy pieces around the opponent's king and at the same time to have a dangerous passed e-pawn, both for the middlegame and the endgame.
JN: (!) Once again, a simple solution. Fischer was more ready than most to change the structure of the position and transform one type of advantage for another. Here the weak e6-pawn disappears, but White's rooks become very active on the f-file. A direct attack against Black's king is not far away. As with Capablanca, Fischer's methods appear deceptively simple. The difficulty of playing like this is only appreciated when you go over the game and try to guess the next move. Then you start to see the tempting alternatives that have to be rejected before the clear-cut solution is found. Here, for example, I (JN) would have been tempted by 26.Rce1 followed by g4 and f5, but this would certainly give Black far more prospects of counter-play than Fischer's method.
26...exf5 27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1
SG: Bringing the last reserves into the attack.
JN: Not 28.Rf7?? Ng5.
Yaz: (!) Continuing to build up the pressure, White reintroduces the threat of Rf5-f7. Black can't stop this threat by playing 28...Rf8 to contest the f-file because 29.Rxf8+ Nxf8 30.Qc8! would pin the f8-Knight, winning it on the next move..
28...Qd8
SG: Black is helpless against the combined action of all the active White pieces.
Yaz: Black avoids the threat Rf5-f7, skewering the a7-Rook.
29.Qg3
SG: Preparing mating threats and the centralization of the queen. All White's moves are simple and very strong.
29...Re7
SG: Trying to cover the second rank. There is not much else Black can do. With his next move, White takes away the last useful square of Black's knight, and then he proceeds with a slow execution.
30.h4
JN: The knight is kept under firm restraint.
30...Rbb7 31.e6
JN: (!) The bishop's diagonal is blocked, but White gains the excellent central square e5 for his queen.
31...Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8 33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8
JN: Black has zero counterplay and can only wait for the decisive blow to fall.
36.Bd3
JN: Fischer decides to finish the game by a direct attack along the b1-h7 diagonal.
36...Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 38.Rxf6
Tal: (!) An effective, though not very complicated exchange sacrifice concludes White's brilliantly played game.
38...gxf6 39.Rxf6 Kg8 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 1-0
RB: Many seemed to think that, in this game especially, Fischer's play matched that of Capablanca... above all, the similarity lay in the simplicity and classic beauty of the play. Many people used to think they could understand Capablanca's chess because it was so simply expressed. And many today feel the same about Fischer's games. Fischer, it is felt, is finding the same kind of profound yet simple moves that Capablanca used to make.
Game 6 on the Web:
Books containing Game 6:
