i will try this opening.,

After 28...Qe7? instead of 29.Nxh7 Fischer could have played Nf5!! which wins the game more conviscingly. It is a very difficult move to spot (computer found the move for me) but it highlights the multiple weaknesses in blacks camp. There is no point reaching these positions if one cannot find these tactical motifs. How many players under 2000 reach such positions and do not find the right moves to finish off the game. I certainly have had several such experiences.

Fischer is remarkable; good opening.

good.........made the point

...great

Thank you for showing Fischers game.

I've been playing the KIA often.   Since it's only 2 tables and 3 pages in the MCO - I decided it was a good opening to play.  There are of course different ways to go about things.  You can play positional and soak up black pressure on the queenside, or try to be Fischer and go for the throat on the kingside (Black will have to be passive for this to happen).

If black gets an attack on the queenside, it's best to counter through the center, as the fianchetto bishop and the king's knight can punish the important central squares.

zbolinger, I played it out on the analysis board a couple of different ways and black loses because white brings up the Knight.

28 be4         dxe4
29 N3xe4      Ne7
30 Nf6+        Kh8
31 Nxf7++

or
28 be4          dxe4
29 N3xe4      f6
30 Nxe6        Qe7
31 Nxf8        Qxf8
32 Nxf6+       Kh8
33 Qxh7++

There may be other variations that I didn't see, but black is pretty much hopeless by move 28

great game by Fischer..

that was a great game. thx

MindWalk, You are right, but that does not change my point .

gestor:  Fischer's 6-0 wins were not against former world champions, although they were against strong grandmasters.  He beat Soviet GM Mark Taimanov and then Danish GM Bent Larsen 6-0 each, and then took the first game against Soviet GM (and former world champion, 1963-1969) Tigran Petrosian before losing the second game, ending his string of twenty consecutive victories.  They drew the next three games before Fischer won the last four to take the match 6 1/2-2 1/2.  After that, of course, came Spassky.

I can see that. That's a good point. 

Hi  kiernanmc,

I have heard this criticism before and of course Paul did not play 2700s every round but he did lose to a player in the 1st US congress, that he later beat in a knights oddss match. What modern player could do that? Most 2700s dont play anyone under 2500.

A more telling point is that Morphy did beat Adolf Anderssen by a quite convincing score, while a young Steinitz was only able to beat a much older Anderssen 8-6. No one would say Stenitz did not play strong opposition. This link to the modern era prove Morphy was the real deal and would likely have trashed Stenitz, Lasker, Alekine and Capa, the same way he did Anderssen.

Fischer is the greatest ever.. Hello chess world where is Bobby Fischer memorial tournment? it should be biggest of all with largest category and prize fund

Perhaps a dumb question, more of an observation...  After Black's move #11, Black has better development, correct?  Isn't development what you want to do more quickly than your opponent?  Or do Fishers "initiative" and "space" trump his lack of development at this point in the game. 

if anyone from chess.com is reading this there are javascript errors in the comments pagination

@ BMcC333:

While Morphy was definitely a great player, in my view he didn't play good enough opponents to merit his being listed as #1 all time, or even in the top ten.

That was a committed attack. I wish I could produce a totally committed attack. I feel......insufficient in the face of such play.

By the way doesn't it suck when your defending piece (in this case the opponent's queen) gets in the way, blocking the attacked king's exit?