World Chess Championship 1972

Qualification cycle

1970 Interzonal tournament

The Interzonal tournament was held in Palma de Mallorca, Spain, in November and December 1970. The top six players of the interzonal (shown in bold in the table below) qualified for the Candidates matches. Fischer had not qualified to play in this event, as he had not participated in the 1969 US Championship (Zonal). Pal Benko (and the reserve William Lombardy) gave up their spot, however, and FIDE President Max Euwe controversially allowed Fischer to participate instead.

:{| class="wikitable"

In early 1971, Portisch and Smyslov contested a six-game playoff in Portorož, Yugoslavia, for the reserve position for the Candidates Tournament. The match ended 3–3; Portisch was declared the winner because of a better tie-break score in the main tournament.

1971 Candidates matches

Petrosian, as the loser of the last championship match, and Korchnoi, as runner-up of the previous Candidates final, were seeded directly into the Candidates match stage, and were joined by the top six from the Interzonal. In the Petrosian–Hübner quarterfinal in Seville, Hübner withdrew from the match after a loss in the 7th game after several disputes with the organizers. The quarterfinals and semifinals matches were played as the best of 10 games. The final match was the best of 12 games.

Fischer dominated the 1971 Candidates matches; his victories over both Mark Taimanov and Bent Larsen were unparalleled at the Candidates level. His loss in game 2 of the Candidates Final versus Tigran Petrosian ended a 20-game winning streak.

The first game of the finals started on September 30th, 1971. Fischer came with Larry Evans and Ed Edmondson as his , while Petrosian arrived with Alexei Suetin and Yuri Averbakh.

| RD1T1-loc=Vancouver, May 1971 | RD1-team1=USA Bobby Fischer | RD1-score1=6 | RD1-team2=URS Mark Taimanov | RD1-score2=0 | RD1T2-loc=Las Palmas, May–June 1971 | RD1-team3=DEN Bent Larsen | RD1-score3=5½ | RD1-team4=GDR Wolfgang Uhlmann | RD1-score4=3½ | RD1T3-loc=Moscow, May 1971 | RD1-team5=URS Viktor Korchnoi | RD1-score5=5½ | RD1-team6=URS Efim Geller | RD1-score6=2½ | RD1T4-loc=Seville, May 1971 | RD1-team7=URS Tigran Petrosian | RD1-score7=4 | RD1-team8=FRG Robert Hübner (withdrew) | RD1-score8=3 | RD2T1-loc=Denver, July 1971 | RD2-team1=USA Bobby Fischer | RD2-score1=6 | RD2-team2=DEN Bent Larsen | RD2-score2=0 | RD2T2-loc=Moscow, July 1971 | RD2-team3=URS Viktor Korchnoi | RD2-score3=4½ | RD2-team4=URS Tigran Petrosian | RD2-score4=5½ | RD3T1-loc=Buenos Aires, Sep–Oct 1971 | RD3-team1=USA Bobby Fischer | RD3-score1=6½ | RD3-team2=URS Tigran Petrosian | RD3-score2=2½

Fischer's victory earned him the right to challenge reigning champion Spassky for the title.

1972 World Championship match

Background

The match was played during the Cold War, albeit during a period of increasing détente. The Soviet Chess School had a 24-year monopoly on the world championship title, with Spassky the latest in an uninterrupted chain of Soviet world chess champions stretching back to the 1948 championship. The surrounding "American versus Russian" narrative within the Cold War context sparked much excitement throughout the world and an unprecedented increase in media coverage for any chess match.

Fischer, an eccentric 29-year-old American, claimed that Soviet players gained an unfair advantage by agreeing to short draws among themselves in tournaments. In 1962, the American magazine Sports Illustrated and the German magazine Der Spiegel published Fischer's article "The Russians Have Fixed World Chess", in which he expounded this view. Fischer himself rarely agreed to early draws.

Spassky faced enormous political pressure in the Soviet Union to win the match. While Fischer was often famously critical of his home country ("Americans want to plunk in front of a TV and don't want to open a book ..."), he too carried a burden of expectation because of the match's political significance. No American had achieved the world championship since the first champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, became a naturalized American citizen in 1888. The unusually high public interest and excitement surrounding the match was so great that it was called the "Match of the Century", even though the same term had been applied to the USSR vs. Rest of the World match just two years before.

Spassky, the champion, had qualified for world championship matches in 1966 and 1969. He lost the world championship match to Tigran Petrosian in 1966. In the 1969 cycle, he won matches against Efim Geller, Bent Larsen, and Viktor Korchnoi to win the right to challenge a second time, then defeated Petrosian 12½–10½ to win the world title. He is often said to have had a "universal style [...] involving an ability to play the most varied types of positions", but Garry Kasparov notes that "from childhood he clearly had a leaning toward sharp, attacking play, and possessed a splendid feel for the initiative."

Fischer, the challenger, was in dominant form. In the Candidates matches en route to becoming the challenger in 1972, he had beaten two grandmasters, Mark Taimanov and Bent Larsen, by perfect scores of 6–0, a feat not previously achieved in a Candidates match. In the Candidates final against Petrosian, Fischer won the first game, lost the second, drew the next three, then finished with four consecutive wins to win the match 6½–2½. "No bare statement conveys the magnitude and impact of these results. ... Fischer sowed devastation." From the last seven rounds of the Interzonal until the first game against Petrosian, Fischer won 19 games (plus 1 win on forfeit) without losing once, almost all against top grandmasters.

Fischer also had a much higher Elo rating than Spassky. On the July 1972 FIDE rating list, Fischer's 2785 was a record 125 points ahead of Spassky, the number two player whose rating was 2660. Fischer's recent results made him the pre-match favorite. Other observers, however, noted that Fischer had never won a game against Spassky. Before the match, Fischer had played five games against Spassky, drawing two and losing three.

Spassky's for the match were Efim Geller, Nikolai Krogius and Iivo Nei. Fischer's was William Lombardy. His entourage also included lawyer Paul Marshall, who played a significant role in the events surrounding the match, and USCF representative Fred Cramer. The match's arbiter was Lothar Schmid.

World-class match play (i.e., a series of games between the same two opponents) often involves one or both players preparing one or two openings deeply, and playing them repeatedly throughout the match. Preparation for such a match also involves analyses of lines known to be played by the opponent. Fischer had been famous for his unusually narrow opening repertoire: for example, almost invariably playing 1.e4 as White, and as Black against 1.e4, almost always playing the Najdorf Variation of the Sicilian Defense. He surprised Spassky by repeatedly switching openings, and by playing openings that he had never, or only rarely, played before (such as 1.c4 as White, and Alekhine's Defense, the Pirc Defense, and the Paulsen Sicilian as Black). Even in openings that Fischer had played before in the match, he continually deviated from the variations he had previously played, almost never repeating the same line.

Prize negotiations and opening ceremony controversy

For some time, it seemed as though the match might not be played at all. Shortly before the match, Fischer demanded that he and Spassky receive 30% of the box-office receipts, in addition to the agreed-upon prize fund of $125,000 (split five-eighths to the winner, three-eighths to the loser) and 30% of the proceeds from television and film rights. Fischer agreed to play after British investment banker Jim Slater doubled the prize fund, and after much persuasion, including a phone call from Henry Kissinger (the US National Security Advisor).

Fischer did not arrive in Iceland in time for the opening ceremony on July 1 required to determine the playing colors, however, and FIDE President Max Euwe postponed the match by two days. Spassky, who appeared at the opening ceremony, refused to draw the colors by himself and asked FIDE to subject Fischer to a penalty, Fischer's of the first game, and the Russian delegation insisted on an apology from both Fischer and the FIDE President. The FIDE President signed a document condemning the action of the Championship Challenger and admitting that the postponement "violated the FIDE rules" for "special reason". Fischer, on his part, wrote a letter of apology with his lawyer Paul Marshall. According to Marshall, in the first draft Fischer renounced his share of the prize money, but the draft wasn't publicly available, since it contained "things damaging to Bobby". In the letter, Fischer explained that his absence was caused by being "carried away by his petty dispute over money with Icelandic chess organizers", and asked for a favor to withdraw the forfeit penalty, saying it would put him at "tremendous handicap" and he "didn't believe that the world's champion desired such an advantage".

After Spassky received the letter of apology on July 6, the Russian head of the State Sports Committee, Sergei Pavlov, told Spassky that he had every right to refuse to play the match and insisted he should return to Moscow. Spassky "politely and diplomatically" declined to follow the recommendation and said he would see the match through "despite Fischer's outrageous" conduct. The match was again postponed until July 11, now initiated by Spassky as a "face-saving measure" to convince Pavlov that the honor of the Soviet Union had been preserved. Fischer agreed, cementing his condition to drop Spassky's demand for a forfeit. Some commentators contended that Fischer was "playing a game of psychological warfare with Spassky, and his demands, his protest, his disappearance—all were calculated to unnerve the supposedly unflappable Russian."

Regulations and results

The match was played as the best of 24 games, with wins counting 1 point and draws counting ½ point, and would end when one of the players scored 12½ points. If the match ended in a 12–12 tie, the defending champion (Spassky) would retain the title. The first time control was 40 moves in 2½ hours. Three games per week were scheduled. Each player was entitled to three postponements for medical reasons during the match. Games were scheduled to start on Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday. If a game was adjourned, it was to be continued the next day. Saturday was a rest day. Over the course of the match, the contestants moved their pieces nearly two thousand times.

Fischer insisted that a Staunton design chess set from Jaques of London be used. The chessboard had to be modified at Fischer's request. The match was covered throughout the world. Fischer became a worldwide celebrity, described as the Einstein of chess. His hotel received dozens of calls each day from women attracted to him, and Fischer enjoyed reading the numerous letters and telegrams that arrived, whether with compliments or criticisms. The day of the first game, Fischer arrived shortly after five o'clock, the scheduled starting time, due to heavy traffic.

Games

Game 1: Spassky–Fischer, 1–0 (Nimzo-Indian Main)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 1 | | | | | |kd| | |pd|pd| | | | |pd|pd | | | | |pd|pd| | | |pl| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |pl| | |kl|pl| | | | | | | | |pl|pl|bd | | |bl| | | | | |Position after Fischer played 29...Bxh2 July 11. At the beginning of play, Fischer was not present. Spassky played 1.d4 and pressed the clock, and nine minutes elapsed before Fischer arrived, shook hands with Spassky, and responded 1...Nf6. The opening was a placid Nimzo-Indian Defense, and after 17...Ba4 the game was even (according to analysis by Filip). After a series of piece exchanges it appeared to be a ending, and no one would have been surprised if the players had agreed to a draw here.

Shockingly, Fischer played 29...Bxh2 as shown, a move that few players would consider in light of the obvious 30.g3, trapping the bishop. In exchange for the lost bishop, Black is only able to obtain two pawns (see chess piece relative value). Gligorić, Kasparov and other commentators have suggested that Fischer may have miscalculated, having planned 30...h5 31.Ke2 h4 32.Kf3 h3 33.Kg4 Bg1, but overlooking that 34.Kxh3 Bxf2 35.Bd2 keeps the bishop trapped. Anatoly Karpov suggested that Spassky was afraid of Fischer and wanted to show that he could draw with the white pieces, while Fischer wanted to disprove that as the game headed for a stale draw. Owing to unusual features in the position, Fischer had good drawing chances despite having only two pawns for the bishop. Fischer on move 56.

The game was played in two days. Spassky adjourned the game on his forty-first move, however, they didn't reach the official adjournment time of five hours, Spassky took a loss of thirty-five minutes on his clock. The game continued the next day, and "Fischer left the playing table for half an hour to protest the presence of the television cameras. Then he resigned on move 56. He told his second Lombardy that he had played too quickly because the cameras distracted him".

The first game had 2,300 spectators.

Game 2: Fischer forfeits

After the first game the match organizers removed the "towers" and the backstage camera, and "they've found a great new place for the cameras–completely invisible and inaudible." Fischer wasn't satisfied with the partial changes, saying he wanted "all cameras out" and refused to proceed to the hall. At the starting time of the game, the match chief arbiter Lothar Schmid walked onto the stage and started Fischer's clock. The challenger had 60 minutes to make his first move before the game resulted in a forfeit. Fischer didn't appear. At that time, Fischer told Icelandic Chess Federation President Guðmundur G. Thórarinsson that, "they forfeit me, that's it I'm taking the next plane back home". Thirty minutes into the game, Chester Fox agreed to remove cameras for one game, "pending further discussion". When Fischer heard about it, he demanded to set the clock back to its original time before he would play. Schmid refused. Friðrik Ólafsson, Icelandic Grandmaster and Fischer's friend, intervened twelve minutes before the forfeit, but Fischer continued insisting on his demands telling Ólafsson "talk to me about everything but the match. I lost interest in it six months ago." Ólafsson described his impression of the Fischer on the day as "not very coherent. He was quite upset and he said he thought that there was a conspiracy against him by the Icelandic Chess Federation, which he believed was a communist front."

At 6 pm, an hour after the start of the game, Schmid stepped up to the playing table and stopped the clock, announcing that since Fischer had not appeared in the playing hall, according to rule five of the Amsterdam Agreement, he lost the game by forfeit. Bobby Fischer formally protested the forfeit, supported by FIDE Delegate Fred Cramer, writing a letter to Schmid and explaining his absence by the poor conditions in the playing hall (in particular the noise and distraction of the video and photo recording). He admitted to initially agreeing to the recording, aware that the organizers were informed about his conditions and "assured by all parties concerned that modern technology had progressed to such an extent that they could photograph him without the least disturbance". The letter was delivered by Fischer in the early hours of July 14 to Schmid's hotel room, and the match committee overruled Fischer's protest, based on FIDE regulations he was required to protest a given game within six hours after that game ended.

Karpov speculated that this forfeited game was actually a masterstroke on Fischer's part, a move designed specifically to upset Spassky's equanimity.

With the score now 2–0 in Spassky's favor, many observers believed that the match was over and Fischer would leave Iceland, and, indeed, Fischer looked to board the next plane out, only to be dissuaded by his second, William Lombardy. His decision to stay in the match was attributed by some to another phone call from Kissinger and a deluge of cablegrams. Spassky agreed to play the third game in a small room backstage, out of sight of the spectators. According to Pal Benko and Burt Hochberg, this concession was a psychological mistake by Spassky.

Game 3: Spassky–Fischer, 0–1 (Modern Benoni)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 3 |rd| |bd|qd|rd| |kd| |pd|pd| |nd| |pd|bd|pd | | | |pd| | |pd| | | |pd|pl| | | |nd | | | | |pl| | | | | |nl| | | | | |pl|pl|ql|nl|bl|pl|pl|pl |rl| |bl| | |rl|kl| |Position after Fischer's 11...Nh5!? July 16. This game proved to be the turning point of the match. After 11.Qc2, Fischer demonstrated his understanding of the position with 11...Nh5—a seemingly move allowing White to shatter Black's pawn structure, but Fischer's assessment that his kingside attack created significant proved correct. Surprised by Fischer's , Spassky did not react in the best way. Instead of 15.Bd2, 15.Ne2!? was possible (Zaitsev), or 15.f3 to prevent ...Ng4. In particular, Spassky's 18th move, weakening the light squares, was a mistake. The game was , and Spassky resigned the next day upon seeing that Fischer had sealed the best move, 41...Bd3+ It was Fischer's first-ever win against Spassky.

Game 4: Fischer–Spassky, ½–½ (Sicilian Sozin)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 4 |bd| | | | |rd| | | | | | | |pd|kd| | | | | |pd| | | |pd| |bd| |qd| |pd| | | |bl|nl| | |ql| |pl| | | | | | |pl | |pl|pl| | | |pl| | | | |rl| | | |kl |Position after 29.Nd4 July 18. The chief arbiter, ensuring the players would proceed to play the third game, appealed to Spassky "as a sportsman" to agree to play in a backstage room without cameras and audience. Spassky agreed, but only for one game. Fischer already booked all three flights that would take him from Reykjavik back to New York City, but was persuaded to "give it [the match] a trial" with newly established conditions.

Fischer, as White, played the Sozin Attack against Spassky's Sicilian Defense. Spassky sacrificed a pawn, and after 17...Bxc5+ had a slight advantage (Nunn). Spassky developed a strong kingside attack, but failed to convert it into a win, the game ending in a draw.

Game 5: Spassky–Fischer, 0–1 (Nimzo-Indian Hübner)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 5 | | | | | |kd| | | | | | | | |pd| | |pd| | | | |qd|pd |pd| |pd|pl|pd| |pd| |bd| |pl| |pl|nd| | | | |pl| | | | | | | |ql| | | |pl|pl | | | |bl|bl| |kl| |After Spassky played 27.Qc2??, Fischer responded 27... Bxa4!, the final move.Chess Informant 14, pp. 212–213, No. 572. July 20. Game 5 was another Nimzo-Indian, this time the Hübner Variation: 4.Nf3 c5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Bd3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d6. Fischer rebuffed Spassky's attempt to attack; after 15...0-0 the game was even (Adorján). Fischer obtained a blocked position where Spassky was saddled with weak pawns and his had no prospects. After 26 moves, Spassky blundered with 27.Qc2, and resigned after Fischer's 27...Bxa4!, as shown. 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 2½–2½), although FIDE rules stipulated that the champion retained the title if after 24 games the match ended in a tie.

After game 5, Fischer hinted to Lombardy about a surprise he had in store for game 6.

Game 6: Fischer–Spassky, 1–0 (QGD Tartakower)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 6 | | |rd| | |qd|kd| |rd| | |nd| | |pd| |pd| | | |pd| | |pd | | |pd|pd| | | | | | | | | | | | |ql| | | |pl| | | |pl|pl| | |bl|pl|pl|pl | | |rl| | |rl|kl| |Position prior to 20.e4!Chess Informant 14, pp. 203–204, No. 547. July 23. Before the match began, the Soviet team that had been training Spassky debated about whether Fischer might play an opening move different from his usual 1.e4.

Fischer played 1.c4 (instead of 1.e4) for the third time in a serious game. With 3.d4 the game transposed into the Queen's Gambit Declined, surprising many who had never seen Fischer play the White side of that opening.

Spassky played Tartakower's Defense (7...b6), his favorite choice in many tournaments and a line with which he had never lost. After 14.Bb5 (introduced in Furman–Geller, Moscow 1970), Spassky responded with 14...a6. Geller had previously shown Spassky 14...Qb7, the move with which Geller later beat Jan Timman at Hilversum 1973, but Spassky apparently forgot about it. Fischer's 20.e4! – "the key move of the game" – struck at Black's center and left Spassky with no good alternatives. After Spassky's 20...d4, "the pawns have no hope of further advance and the white bishop is unimpeded." After 21.f4, Fischer had the upper hand (Hort). After 26.f5, White started "steadily gaining momentum".

After this game, Spassky joined the audience in applauding Fischer's win. This astounded Fischer, who called his opponent "a true sportsman".

"Lombardy was ecstatic: 'Bobby has played a steady, fluent game, and just watched Spassky make horrendous moves. Spassky has not met a player of Bobby's genius and caliber before, who fights for every piece on the board; he doesn't give in and agree to draws like the Russian grandmasters. This is a shock to Spassky.

According to C.H.O'D. Alexander: "This game was notable for two things. First, Fischer played the Queen's Gambit for the first time in his life in a serious game; second, he played it to perfection, the game indeed casting doubt on Black's whole opening system."

The win gave Fischer the lead (3½–2½) for the first time in the match.

Game 7: Spassky–Fischer, ½–½ (Sicilian Najdorf)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 7 | | | | | | | |rd | | | | | | | | | |pd| | | |pd| | | | | | | |nl| |pd |pl| |nd|rl|rl| |pd|pl | | | | | |kd| | | | |rd| | | | | | | | | | | |kl| |Final position after 49.Kg1 July 25. Spassky played 1.e4 for the first time in the match. Fischer defended aggressively with his favorite Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Najdorf Sicilian, and after 17...Nc6 had the upper hand (Gipslis). He consolidated his extra pawn and reached a winning endgame, but then played carelessly, allowing Spassky to salvage a draw. 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.

Game 8: Fischer–Spassky, 1–0 (English Symmetrical)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 8 | |rd| | | | |kd| | | | | |pd|pd|bd|pd |pd| | |pd| |nd|pd| |qd| | | | | | | | | |bd| | | | | | | |nl| | | |pl| |pl| | |ql|pl|pl|bl|pl | | |rl|rl| | |kl| |Position prior to Spassky's 19...Nd7?? July 27. Fischer again played 1.c4 (an English Opening), soon transposing to another opening similar to game 6. After 14...a6 the game was even. Spassky sacrificed an exchange, playing 15...b5 "under dubious conditions" and giving up his rook for White's bishop. After Spassky made his 19th move, Nd7, his position further deteriorated—"a terrible mistake which allowed White to win back his pawn, leaving Black with a completely lost position". Fischer won, putting him ahead 5–3.

Game 9: Spassky–Fischer, ½–½ (QGD Semi-Tarrasch)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 9 |rd| |bd|qd|kd|bd| |rd |pd| | | | |pd|pd|pd | | |nd| |pd| | | | |pd| | | | | | | | |bl|pl|pl| | | | | | | | |nl| | |pl| | | | |pl|pl|pl |rl| |bl|ql|kl| | |rl |Position after Fischer's novelty 9...b5!Chess Informant 14, p. 201, No. 542. August 1. After game 8 Spassky took time off, citing an illness, which delayed game 9 by two days. The opening transposed to the Semi-Tarrasch Defense of the Queen's Gambit Declined. Fischer then played a of 9...b5!. After 13...0-0 the game was even (Parma). Several exchanges followed, as the game proceeded to a quiet draw after just 29 moves.

Game 10: Fischer–Spassky, 1–0 (Ruy Lopez Breyer)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 10 |rd| | |rd| |bd|kd| | |bd| | | |pd|pd|pd |pd| | | | | | | |qd|pl|pd| | | | | | | | | |pl| | | | |bl| | | |nl| |pl | | | | | |pl|pl| | |rl|ql| |rl| |kl| |Position after 25...Qxa5?! 26.Bb3!Chess Informant 14, p. 116, No. 300. August 3. Fischer played the Ruy Lopez, an opening on which he was considered an expert. After a balanced opening, Spassky's 25...Qxa5 gave Fischer the upper hand (25...axb5 26.Rxb5 Ba6 gives Spassky a better chance; Gligorić). Fischer responded by initiating a dangerous attack on Spassky's king with 26.Bb3 (Matanović), suddenly placing Black in a critical situation. 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 advantage. Spassky then had chances to draw, but played inexactly, and Fischer won the game with precise play.

Game 11: Spassky–Fischer, 1–0 (Sicilian Najdorf)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 11 |rd| | | |kd|bd| |rd | |pd| |bd| |pd| | |pd| |nd|pd|pd|pd| | | | | | | | | |pd | | | | |pl|pl| | |qd|nl| | | | | | |pl| |pl|ql|bl| |pl|pl |rl|nl| | | |rl| |kl |Position after Spassky's extraordinary 14.Nb1!!Chess Informant 14, pp. 187–188, No. 503. August 6. As in game 7, game 11 opened with the Sicilian Najdorf and Fischer played his favorite Poisoned Pawn Variation. Spassky responded with the startling 14.Nb1 (given by many annotators at the time), retreating his knight to its starting position. Although later analysis showed that the game would maintain if Black responded correctly, Fischer was unprepared for the move and did not find the optimal reply. If Fischer had instead played 15...Ne7 then 16.N1d2!? and the game is unclear (Gipslis). After inferior defense by Fischer, Spassky trapped Fischer's queen to reach a winning position, at which point Fischer resigned. It was Spassky's first win since games 1 and 2; for Fischer it was the only time in his career that he lost using the Poisoned Pawn variation in a competitive game.

Game 12: Fischer–Spassky, ½–½ (QGD Neo-orthodox)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 12 |rd|qd| | | |rd|kd| | |bd| |nd| |pd|pd| |pd| | | |pd|nd| |pd | | | | | | | | | |bd| |nl|bl| | |bl | | |nl| |pl| | | | |pl| | | |pl|pl|pl | | |rl|ql| |rl|kl| |Position after 19.Be4! Qb8!Chess Informant 14, p. 204, No. 548. August 8. As in game 6, Fischer's opening 1. c4 transposed into the Queen's Gambit Declined. A quiet game followed. After 19.Be4, analysts gave Fischer a slight advantage (Yudovich), but by 24...a5 the game was even again (Polugaevsky). Neither player was able to find an advantage, and after 55 moves they reached an opposite-colored bishops endgame. Although Spassky had an extra pawn (four against Fischer's three), they could not make progress, and agreed to a draw.

Game 13: Spassky–Fischer, 0–1 (Alekhine's Defense Modern)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 13 | | | | | |bl|rd| | | | | | | |pl| | | | | | | | | | |kd| | | |pd| | | |pd|pd| | | | | | | | | | | | |pd |pd| | |kl| | | | |rl| | | | | | | |Position after 61.Bf8 August 10. Fischer avoided the Sicilian Defense, with which he had lost game 11, opting for Alekhine's Defense. After 8...a5 9.a4 (9.c3 and Black is only slightly better; Gligorić) dxe5 10.dxe5 Na6! 11.0-0 Nc5, Fischer had the upper hand (Bagirov). 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. analyzing it (the resumption being at 2:30 p.m.). He had not found a win either, but managed to win a complicated pawns-versus-rook endgame after Spassky missed a relatively simple draw with 69.Rc3+. 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?"

Lombardy noted the shock that Spassky was in after he resigned:While Fischer dashed for his car, Spassky remained glued to his seat. A sympathetic Lothar Schmid came over, and the two shifted the pieces about with Boris demonstrating his careless mistakes. The two were left wondering how Bobby could have squeezed a win from a position which a night of competent analysis by a renowned Soviet team had showed to be a guaranteed draw.

Former World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik said this game made a particularly strong impression on him. He called it "the highest creative achievement of Fischer". He resolved a 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".

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."

When Spassky and Fischer shook hands, many in the audience thought 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.

The next seven games (games 14 through 20) were drawn. Spassky chose safe lines that Fischer was unable to break, and Fischer was unable to increase his 3-point lead.

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 chemicals and electronic devices to 'influence' Spassky, resulting in an inconclusive Icelandic police sweep of the hall.

Game 14: Fischer–Spassky, ½–½ (QGD Harrwitz)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 14 | | | | | |rd|kd| |pd|pd| | | |pd|pd| | |bd|nd| | |qd| |pd | | | |pd| | | | |ql| | | |nd|bl| | |pl| | | |pl|nl| | | |pl| | |bl|pl|pl|pl | | | | | |rl|kl| |Position prior to Fischer's 21.Bb5? August 15. The game was postponed at Spassky's request. Fischer was again White in a Queen's Gambit Declined. After 18.Be5 (18.Nxb6 Qxb6 19.Be5 and Fischer keeps a slight advantage; Gligorić) Bxa4 19.Qxa4 Nc6! Spassky had the upper hand (Karpov). Fischer blundered a pawn on move 21. Spassky blundered it back on move 27, however, and the game settled into a 40-move draw.

Game 15: Spassky–Fischer, ½–½ (Sicilian Najdorf)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 15 | | | |rd| | | | |kd|bd| | | | |ql| |pd| | | |pd| | | | | | | | | |nl| |pl| | | | | | | |kl| |pl| | | |pl| | |rl| | | | | |pl |qd| | | | | | | |Final position after 43...Qa1+ August 17. Fischer returned to the Najdorf Sicilian, but played the main line rather than the Poisoned Pawn Variation with which he had lost game 11. At move 13, Fischer sacrificed a pawn for , which Spassky accepted. After 19.c3, Spassky had the upper hand (Gipslis). After 28...Rd7 the game was even, but when Spassky took a second pawn with 29.Qxh5 it allowed Fischer a very strong attack. 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. Two years later, Yugoslav grandmaster Dragoljub Velimirović improved on Spassky's play with the piece sacrifice 13.Bxb5, winning a crushing victory in Velimirović–Al Kazzaz, Nice Olympiad 1974. Black in turn later improved on Fischer's 12...0-0-0 with 12...b4.

Game 16: Fischer–Spassky, ½–½ (Ruy Lopez Exchange)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 16 | | | | | | | | | | |pd| | |kd|pd|pd |pd| |pd| | | | | | | | | |bd| | | | | |pd| |rd| | | | | | | |bl| |pl| |pl|rd|rl|rl| |pl|kl|pl | | | | | | | | |Position after 22...Rxb2!Chess Informant 14, pp. 106–107, No. 271. August 20. Fischer played the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez, a favorite line of his. After 17...Rfe8 the game was equal (Gipslis). 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 . Although a draw could have been agreed after move 34, Spassky "used his symbolic advantage for a little psychological torture", prolonging the game until move 60 before agreeing to a draw.

Game 17: Spassky–Fischer, ½–½ (Pirc Defense)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 17 |rd| | | | |rd|kd| |pd|pd| | |pd|pd| |pd | | |nd|pd| |nd|pd| | | | | | |pl| | | | | | |pl| |bd| | |bl|qd| |bl|nl| | |pl| |pl| |ql| |pl|pl | | | |rl| |rl|kl| |Position after 15.f5! Nf6! August 22. Fischer played the Pirc Defense for the first time in his career. After 18...Qc7 the game was unclear (Parma). The game ended in a draw by the threefold repetition rule.

Game 18: Fischer–Spassky, ½–½ (Sicilian Rauzer)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 18 | |rd| | | | | | | | |kd|bd|bd| | | | | | |pd|pd|pd| | |rd| | | | | | |pd |pd| |qd|nl|pl| | | |pl|pd|pl|nl| | |pl| | |pl| | |ql|rl| |pl |kl| | | |rl| | | |Position after 31.Rf2 August 24. The game opened with a Richter–Rauzer Attack. After 19...Ne5 the game was equal (Matanović, Ugrinović). Like game 17, the game ended in a draw by threefold repetition.

Game 19: Spassky–Fischer, ½–½ (Alekhine's Defense)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 19 |rd|nd| | | |rd|kd| |pd| | | | |pd|pd|pd | | |pd| |pd| | | |qd| |pl|nl|pl| |bd| | | | |pl|pl| | | | | | | | |bl| |pl |pl| | | | | |pl| |rl| | |ql| |rl|kl| |Position after 18.Nxd5! Bg5! August 27. The second Alekhine's Defense of the match, the game ended in a draw after 40 moves. After 18...Bg5, Gligorić commented "a queer situation has arisen with many tactical possibilities for both sides." After 19.Bh5 the position was unclear (Bagirov). After 37...a6, C.H.O'D. Alexander wrote: "A miracle; after all the excitements – two piece sacrifices by White and the counter-sacrifice of a rook by Black – the players have reached a completely equal endgame with no chances for either side."

Game 20: Fischer–Spassky, ½–½ (Sicilian Rauzer)

|tright |Fischer–Spassky, game 20 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |kd| | |bd| | |pd| | |pd| | |pd |pd| | |nd| | |pd| |pl| |kl| |nl| |pl| | |pl|pl| | | | |pl | | | | |nl| | | |Final position after 54...Nd4, with White to move. The same position arose twice before after 48.Kc3 and 50.Ne1, but with Black to move instead. August 29. Another Richter–Rauzer, after 13...Nxd2 the game was equal (Matanović, Ugrinović), but it promised to be a "keen fight when both kings castled on opposite wings". Spassky outplayed Fischer and got a better position, and Fischer "eschewed complications, for the first time clearly content to play for a draw with White". Fischer headed for a endgame but Spassky twice avoided a draw by threefold repetition. After 54 moves, Fischer made an incorrect claim of threefold repetition, but Spassky agreed to a draw anyway.

Game 21: Spassky–Fischer, 0–1 (Sicilian Taimanov)

|tright |Spassky–Fischer, game 21 | | | | | | | | | | | |bl| | | | | | | | | |pd| | | | | | | |pl| |pd |pl| | | | |kd| | | |pl| | | | | | |rd| | | | |pl|kl| | | | | | | | | |The final position, after Spassky's sealed move 41.Bd7.Chess Informant 14, pp. 142–143, No. 374. August 31. The 21st and the last game of the match. Fischer used a line of the Sicilian that he had never before played as Black, and further surprised Spassky with a on move eight by accepting an isolated pawn and obtaining, as a compensation, "good play for his pieces on the central squares". After 14...Qxf6 the game was equal (Taimanov). Spassky played badly in the endgame, and the game was adjourned with a big advantage for Fischer. Fischer's 40th move was not the best, however; he should have played 40...Kg4 before ...h5 (his actual 40th move). Had Spassky 41.Kh3! (preventing ...Kg4), he would have had drawing chances. Instead he sealed 41.Bd7, which would have permitted Black to win with 41...Kg4 followed by his h-pawn. On September1, 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. FIDE President Max Euwe expressed disappointment that Spassky did not go to the playing hall to congratulate Fischer.

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.

Aftermath

Fischer's victory made him an instant celebrity. Upon his return to New York, a Bobby Fischer Day was held. He was offered numerous product endorsement offers worth millions of dollars, all of which he declined. He appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated with American Olympic swimming champion Mark Spitz. Fischer also made television appearances on a Bob Hope special and The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson. But the games in this match proved to be his last public competitive games for two decades.

Fischer had, prior to the match, felt that the first-to-12½-points format was not fair, since it encouraged whoever was leading to play for draws instead of wins. He himself adopted this strategy in the match: after having taken a comfortable lead, he drew games 14–20. With each game, he coasted closer to the title, while Spassky lost a chance to fight back. This style of chess offended Fischer. Instead he demanded the format be changed to that used in the very first World Chess Championship, between Wilhelm Steinitz and Johannes Zukertort, where the winner was the first player to score 10 wins, with draws not counting. In case of a 9–9 score, the champion would retain title, and the prize fund split equally. A FIDE Congress was held in 1974 during the Nice Olympiad. The delegates voted in favor of Fischer's 10-win proposal, but rejected the 9–9 clause as well as the possibility of an unlimited match. In response, Fischer refused to defend his title. Anatoly Karpov, who had fought his way through the 1975 candidates tournament, was declared World Champion by forfeit.

Seventeen years later, Fischer entered negotiations with sponsors willing to fund a match under his proposed format, settling on a bid from Yugoslav millionaire Jezdimir Vasiljević. Fischer insisted that since he had not been defeated in a match, he was still the true world champion. He further claimed that all the games in the FIDE-sanctioned World Championship matches, involving Karpov and his challengers Korchnoi and Kasparov, had prearranged outcomes. He then challenged Spassky (tied for 96th–102nd on the FIDE rating list at the time) to a rematch, leading to the 1992 Fischer–Spassky match.

In popular culture

• The musical Chess, with lyrics by Tim Rice and music by Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson, tells the story of two chess champions, referred to only as "The American" and "The Russian". The musical is loosely based on the 1972 World Championship match between Fischer and Spassky.
• During the 1972 Fischer–Spassky match, the Soviet bard Vladimir Vysotsky wrote an ironic two-song cycle "Honor of the Chess Crown". The first song is about a rank-and-file Soviet worker's preparation for the match with Fischer; the second is about the game. Many expressions from the songs have become catchphrases in Russian culture.
• The 2011 documentary Bobby Fischer Against the World features extensive archival footage from the match.
• The 2014 film Pawn Sacrifice tells the story of Fischer's attempts to defeat Russian Boris Spassky and become the world champion. The film is directed by Edward Zwick and stars Tobey Maguire as Fischer and Liev Schreiber as Spassky.
• In the sixth episode of season 3 of Drunk History, comedian Rich Fulcher recounts the 1972 World Championship match between Fischer and Spassky.

Footnotes

Notes

References

• {{cite book |author-link=Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander
• {{cite book |author-link1=Pal Benko |author-link2=Burt Hochberg
• {{cite book
• {{cite book
• {{cite book |author-link1=Robert Byrne (chess player) |author-link2=Iivo Nei
• {{cite book |author-link=Jan Hein Donner
• {{cite book |author-link1=David Edmonds (philosopher)
• {{cite book
• {{cite book |author-link1=Larry Evans (chess grandmaster) |author-link2=Ken Smith (chess)
• {{cite book |author-link=Svetozar Gligorić |url-access=registration
• {{cite book
• {{cite book
• {{cite book
• {{cite book
• {{cite book
• {{cite book |editor-link=Aleksandar Matanović |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksander |trans-title=Chess Informant
• {{cite book |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksandar
• {{cite book |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksandar
• {{cite book |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksandar
• {{cite book |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksandar
• {{cite book |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksandar
• {{cite book |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksandar
• {{cite book |editor-last=Matanović |editor-first=Aleksandar
• {{cite book
• {{cite book
• {{cite book |author-link2=Harold C. Schonberg |author-link3=Israel Albert Horowitz |author-link4=Samuel Reshevsky
• {{cite book
• {{cite book

References

1. ''Chess Informant'' 14, pp. 299–316.
2. (July 11, 1972). "Play May Be Televised".
3. Pal Benko. (July 1975). "In the Arena".
4. "Portoroz Candidates Reserve Playoff 1971".
5. "Petrosian – Hübner Candidates Quarterfinal (1971)".
6. (4 July 2011). "Bobby Fischer: Chess's beguiling, eccentric genius".
7. (October 9, 1962). "Bobby Fischer: Schacher im Schach. Das abgekartete Spiel der Russen".
8. Bobby Fischer. (August 20, 1962). "Bobby Fischer: The Russians Have Fixed World Chess".
9. (January 19, 2008). "Fisher's 1972 Match Was Cold War Battle".
10. "Steinitz entry at World Chess Museum and Hall of Fame".
11. Koshnitsky, Gary. (2022-07-10). "From the Archives, 1972: The Match of the Century".
12. "All Time Rankings lists the top 10 from 1970 to 1997.".
13. [[Bill Goichberg]]. (July 1972). "Masters and Experts View the Match".
14. Capablanca, José Raúl. (1977). "World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927". Dover Publications.
15. [[FIDE]] Article 7, Rule 8, reproduced in Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, p. 204
16. [[FIDE]] Article 7, Rule 6, reproduced in Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, p. 204
17. [[FIDE]] Article 7, Rule 9b, reproduced in Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, p. 204
18. [[FIDE]] Article 7, Rule 9a, reproduced in Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, p. 204
19. [[FIDE]] Article 7, Rule 10, reproduced in Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, p. 204
20. Darrach, Brad. (1972-08-11). "Bobby is Not a Nasty Kid".
21. ''Chess Informant'' 14, p. 219, No. 591.
22. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 1".
23. ''Chess Informant'' 14, pp. 62–63, No. 146.
24. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 3".
25. ''Chess Informant'' 14, p. 155, No. 411.
26. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 4".
27. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 5".
28. [[FIDE]] Article 7, Rule 8, reproduced in Roberts, Schonberg, Horowitz & Reshevsky 1972, p. 204
29. [[William Lombardy]]. (January 21, 1974). "A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma"".
30. D. Marović. (1991). "Play the Queen's Gambit". Maxwell Macmillan Chess.
31. Eduard Gufeld. (March 2001). "Inventors and Novelty-Makers".
32. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 6".
33. ''Chess Informant'' 14, pp. 186–187, No. 502.
34. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 7".
35. ''Chess Informant'' 14, p. 47, No. 100.
36. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 8".
37. "Spassky, Boris V vs Fischer, Robert James (Game 9)".
38. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 9".
39. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 10".
40. "Fischer games as Black in Poisoned Pawn".
41. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 11".
42. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 12".
43. ''Chess Informant'' 14, pp. 69–70, No. 165.
44. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 13".
45. [[Harold C. Schonberg]]. (August 27, 1972). "Fox Alone In Suit Against Fischer".
46. [[Harold C. Schonberg]]. (August 11, 1972). "Spassky Seals Move No. 42 In 13th Game With Fischer".
47. ''Chess Informant'' 14, p. 201, No. 541.
48. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 14".
49. (1975). "The 1974 World Chess Olympiad". R.H.M. Press.
50. "Velimirović vs. Al Kazzaz, Nice Olympiad 1974 (1–0, 28)".
51. "Gunawan vs. Adianto, Indonesia 1983 (1–0, 31)".
52. [[Nick de Firmian]]. (2008). "[[Modern Chess Openings]]". Random House Puzzles & Games.
53. ''Chess Informant'' 14, p. 189, No. 507.
54. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 15".
55. [[Larry Kaufman]]. (2004). "The Chess Advantage in Black and White". Random House Puzzles & Games.
56. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 16".
57. ''Chess Informant'' 14, pp. 78–79, No. 190.
58. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 17".
59. ''Chess Informant'' 14, pp. 159–160, No. 424.
60. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 18".
61. ''Chess Informant'' 14, pp. 70–71, No. 168.
62. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 19".
63. ''Chess Informant'' 14, p. 160, No. 425.
64. "Fischer vs. Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, rd 20".
65. Andrew Torchia. (September 1, 1972). "Fischer is Crowned World Chess Champ". Associated Press.
66. "Spassky vs. Fischer, Reykjavik 1972, rd 21".
67. (1974). "The World of Chess". Random House.
68. Larry Evans, in Müller 2009, p. 13.
69. (August 14, 1972). "BOBBY'S CHESSBOARD MASTERY".
70. Cavett, Dick. (February 8, 2008). "Was It Only a Game?". The New York Times.
71. Seirawan, Yasser. (2003). "Winning Chess Brilliancies". Microsoft Press.
72. Kasparov, Garry. (2003). "My Great Predecessors, Volume IV". Gloucester Publishers.
73. Kasparov, Garry. (2004). "My Great Predecessors, Volume IV". Gloucester Publishers.
74. Weeks, Mark. (1997–2008). "1992 Fischer – Spassky Rematch Highlights". Printer.
75. [[William Hartston]]. (1986). "Chess: The Making of the Musical". Pavilion Books.
76. Zhaskyran, Musin. (January 2001). "Chess Problems (about chess songs of Vladimir Vysotsky)".
77. "Bobby Fischer Against the World". Sundance Institute.
78. "Bobby Fischer Against the World".
79. (6 October 2015). "Games".