21.Bd6 was almost certainly considered by Fischer, since it's very natural and more forcing than Bf3. Is also leads to a forced win, as the analysis posted in previous pages demonstrates, but some of the winning lines are rather tricky, so it's quite likely that Fischer missed some tactical twist in his calculations.

Later in the game, one of the crossroads where Larsen might have had better chances to draw was <25...Qxc3> instead of Qe3+:

click for larger view

26.Bb2 Re1+ 27.Kf2 Qe3+ 28.Kg3 Qg5+ 29.Kh3 Qh6+ 30.Kg3 Qg5+ with perpetual check.

26.Qc6+ can lead to a creative line which, I believe, was first suggested by Timman in "The Art of Chess Analysis": 26...Kg5 27.Bc1+ <27.h4+ fails to 27...Kxh4 28.Qc7 Qxa1+ 29.Bc1 Qxc1+ 30.Kh2 Rd6!! 31.Qxd6 Kg5 - and now White doesn't have Qxg7+> 27...f4 <27...Kh4? 28.g3+ Kh3 29.Bg2+ Kg4 30.h3+ Kxg3 31.Qc7+ Qe5 32.Qxe5+ Rxe5 33.Bg5 (with the threat Ra3+) 33...Re2 34.Bf1 Rxc2 35.Bxd8> 28.h4+! Kf5! <28...Kxh4? 29.Kh2! <29.Bxf4? Qd4+>> 29.g4+! fxg3 30.Kg2:

click for larger view

And now 30...Qxa1 loses to 31.Bg4+! Ke5 32.Qc5+ Kf6 <32...Rd5 33.Qe3+ Kd6 34.Ba3+ Kc7 35.Qxa7+ Kc6 36.Qa6+ Kc7 37.Qxc4+ Kb6/b8 38.Qxd5 Qxa3 39.Qb5+ and Qxe8> 33.Bg5+ Kf7 34.Qxc4+ Kf8 35.Bh5! <35.Qf4+? Kg8 36.Qc4+ Kh8 and the Black king escapes> 35...Re7 36.Qf4+ Kg8 37.Bxe7.

So apparently Black must remain in a very inferior position, with a horrifically exposed king and no compensation in material. However, he has the resource 30...Qd4! threatening Qf2+, and now after 31.Kxg3 (or Kh3), 31...Qxa1 leads to a draw. The point is that the previous winning line doesn't work for White anymore, since he hasn't got time for the "quiet" move (36)Bh5 which would lose to 36...Qg1+ 37.Kf3 <37.Kh3 Re3+ 38.Bxe3 Qxe3+ followed by Rd4+ or Rd2+> 37...Qd1+. So apparently white has nothing better than forcing a perpetual check by 32.Bg4+ Ke5 33.Qc5+ Kf6 34.Qf5+(!) Ke7 35.Bg5+ Kd6 36.Bf4+ Ke7 etc.

''Anyway,'' said Fischer, ''we started our first game and around the 10th move he threw something at me. He figured to catch me by surprise. But when I looked at the position, I remembered it was something that Steinitz had tried against Lasker in the 1894 championship match. If I hadn't known that position, I might have spent a lot of time figuring it out and maybe I couldn't even have done it on my clock. But once I saw the position, I remembered that I had once analyzed it, and I knew Larsen was dead. When I played the right move, Larsen knew that I knew, and he lost the game and also the next five.'' >

Source:

NYTIMES, "Cold War in the World of Chess" by HAROLD C. SCHONBERG, Sept 27, 1981.

Anybody know the game Fischer is referring to?

I just checked to see if he might have meant some other Lasker-Steinitz game. I only found one other French between them, in 1896, again Steinitz was White, and again, it was nothing like this one.

Apparently either Fischer misspoke, or he was thinking of a game with a different opening but a similar middlegame. In fact, it would probably have to be something like that, because offhand I don't think Steinitz played the French Defense a single time in his whole career.

Yeah, I just went through all the games, but I didn't find anything vaguely similar as well. Maybe Fischer misspoke, but it's also possible that Schonberg didn't know what Fischer was saying. Later in the article, Schonberg says:

< ''How about a game?'' I asked. He was amused. I grabbed the white pieces, not even giving him the chance to draw for color - what the hell, he was Bobby Fischer - and played a Queen's Gambit. It was the best game I ever have played. I held out for about 30 moves, and when I resigned, it was with flags flying and bands playing ''The Stars and Stripes Forever.'' I went down with honors. The game took about 15 minutes, of which 14 were mine. He would move instantly, with a bored look on his face.

''Know what was interesting about this game?'' he asked. No, I didn't. ''Up to the 19th move, it was an exact duplicate of a game I played against Mecking in Brazil nine years ago. You and Mecking both played the same 19th move, and it looks natural, but it loses in all variations. Let me show you.'' Fischer swept the board clean, instantly set up the complicated 19th-move position and showed me six variations in a row proving why White must lose.>

But neither of the Fischer-Mecking games are QG. So I'm not sure what's going on.

I think Kasparov argued that 7 a4 was of dubious value, wasting a tempo. If I remember correctly, he suggested Nf3 or Qg4 (Polgar seems to be an expert with Qg4, btw).

But I disagree with him(?!)--it seems like Fischer made a good decision to to place the bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal since Larsen chose to open it up with 10 c4.

Anyways, Fischer's own thoughts on 7 a4, from M60MG,

<Smyslov's favourite, largely responsible for Botvinnk's giving up the Winawer Variation. Sharper is 7.Qg4. I felt that Black's carapace could be cracked by only positional means, but my results have been disheartening...>

---

<SetNoEscapeOn>

Yeah this is definitely one of my favorite Fischer games. It doesn't seem to get as much publicity as others, but it's fantastic. Both players trade blows in the opening and they are pretty level at many points. Fischer's calculation must've been incredibly deep too. 28 Bc5!! took a lot of courage to play.

Hmmm, I don't know. He might have been referring to a casual game. But even if so, it's hard to imagine Fischer playing even casual games with Mecking circa 1962, when Mecking would have been only 10 years old.

Schonberg's book, <Grandmasters of Chess> is very good, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe he should have invested in a pocket recorder, to better remember on-the-spot details.

The position is identical up through Move 11, where it was <Fischer> who varied, by playing 12. Re1, instead of 12. Ba3 as he had against Mednis.

Analysis by Rybka 3 32-bit:

1. (2.24): 21...Qd8 22.Bf3[] Be6 23.Qd4+[] Kf7[] 24.Bxb7 Qb6[] 25.Qxb6 axb6 26.Bc6 Red8[] 27.Bxa8 Rxa8[]

2. (2.34): 21...Qb6+ 22.Bc5[] Qc7 23.h4[] Re5 24.Bd4[] Be6 25.Qb5 Bd7 26.Rxe5 Nxe5

3. (2.62): 21...Qc8 22.Bf3[] Bc6 23.Qd4+[] Kf7[] 24.Qxc4+[] Re6[] 25.Bd5 Bxd5[] 26.Qxd5 Kf6 27.g4 Rxd6 28.Qxd6+[] Kg5[] 29.Rab1 Qxc3 30.gxf5[] Nf4 31.Qe7+[] Kh5 32.Qe3 Qxe3+ 33.Rxe3 b6 34.Re7 Kh6 35.Rd1 Nh5 36.h4 Nf6

The only parallel I can think of is Steinitz several times playing c4-c5 on the white side of a queen's gambit declined, rather like Larsen's ...c5-c4 in this game. Of course knowing about the 1894 games would be no help in dealing with Larsen's move at all; the positions are completely different.

I think Fischer enjoyed telling Schonberg and other journalists these silly stories and then seeing them in print.

But I disagree with him(?!)--it seems like Fischer made a good decision to to place the bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal since Larsen chose to open it up with 10 c4. >

Since Fischer left the scene 7. a4 seems to have left the scene too -- not that that proves anything. After all, a3-a4 was endorsed not just by Fischer but by Smyslov too. And if like Nikita you think the Winawer is bad, you're disagreeing with Botvinnik, who pretty much developed it as a variation.