Russians versus Fischer:Part X
Submitted by
chessbibliophile on Tue, 10/27/2009 at 2:12am.
Russians versus Fischer
by Dmitri Plisetsky and Sergey Voronkov
Hardcover, 462 pages
Everyman Chess.2005
http://www.everymanchess.com/
http://www.chess.com/article/view/russians-versus-fischer
Fischer always held the centre stage in a tournament. He was never a spectator. So why did he visit the Fried Chicken Tournament on the last day at San Antonio in 1972? Was it to see Karpov?
For the Russians the young player was the hope for the future. He had shared the first prize with Leonid Stein in the Moscow 1971 Tournament, ahead of world champions, Spassky, Petrosian, Smyslov and Tal. He had followed it up in Hastings 1971-1972, sharing the first prize with Korchnoi. At San Antonio again he shared the first prize with Petrosian and Portisch ahead of Larsen and Keres. So it was a potential rival that Bobby watched on that day. A year later Karpov went on to win the Leningrad Interzonal, sharing the first prize with Korchnoi. He clinched this performance with victories over Polugaevsky and Spassky in Candidates' Matches.
Kasparov:"What put Fischer on the alert was the Karpov-Spassky match.
Karpov beat Spassky very convincingly, after losing game one, and in good style. In the next ten games he crushed Spassky 4-0, and Spassky played better than Reykjavik, no blunders, no nervous reactions.Spassky fought hard, still he lost 4-0 in ten games. And the quality of this match was phenomenal. So far Bobby was dominant by beating players of older generation. Now he had to deal with a player he never met before, who didn’t make the same mistakes that other players did.Karpov’s playing style was very different.He was more steady and also more stubborn. Fischer always had extra time on his clock playing Petrosian, Spassky and it added confidence for him.But Karpov played very quickly,probably quicker than Fischer.Bobby didn’t like what he saw on analyzing Karpov’s games.The way Karpov played, the pace of his play, the opening preparation and the defence skills.Karpov was very stubborn in defending bad positions.So the resistance Fischer was going to face in the match with Karpov was unheard by his standards.
In the coming match the pressure was going to be on Fischer. All the different elements, both chess and political,were going to be a burden on his shoulders. In Reykjavik he had unleashed a psychological war on Spassky and Boris had crumbled. But Karpov was as solid as ice.Bobby’s mind games wouldn’t have worked with him.That’s why Fischer was so aggressive in pushing the unlimited match, ten wins, because he knew, it would be his best chance.
In the Korchnoi Match
it was 3-0 after game 17 in Karpov’s favour, then he had got tired, and the match was decided only after the score became 3-2.Fischer insisted on a very long match, because he knew his only real advantage over Karpov was his frail constitution.He hoped Karpov would be losing energy and be worn down in the end.
I still think Fischer would have shown us magnificent chess if the match had taken place.This would have been phenomenal clash, with two giants colliding at the height of their powers."
How right was Kasparov about that Spassky match!Boris had recovered from the Reykjavik defeat.He had gone on to win the 43rd USSR Championship and beaten Robert Byrne in the Candidates' Match in style.He had felt confident after beating Karpov in the first game of their match.Then he foundered, being outplayed in game after game. In a way this match was unsatisfactory because Boris was just not allowed to display his unique understanding of the middle game for which he was rightly famed.Soon after Karpov was crowned world champion,they met again in the Leningrad-Russian Federation Match.This time Karpov did allow Spassky to show his great skills and still beat him with a majestic performance.
A great game reminiscent of Capablanca, the idol of both Fischer and Karpov.
Now about Fischer's conditions for the 1975 match:It was FIDE that took the decision to abandon the old format of 24 games in 1971. It adopted a resolution that the 1975 match would be for unlimited games, 6 wins, draws not counting. Essentially, it was Fischer’s idea promoted by the USCF.Now when the same Fischer saw that he would be up against Karpov, a young and dangerous rival with no chinks in his armour, he demanded a change in the format to 10 wins, draws not counting. He also insisted on the clause of the champion retaining the title in the event of a 9:9 tie. In other words the challenger had to score 10:8 points to win the match. The 2-point handicap was to protect the world champion( read Fischer) against any reverse in the match.Throughout history world champions have sought to impose conditions favorable to theselves in a match for the title.That speaks more for their insecurity than anything else. Fischer was no exception. But it put the USCF on the horns of a dilemma. How was it going to persuade FIDE, to change the same rules it had got passed at the instance of Fischer? Ed Edmondson, the Executive Director, USCF had selflessly worked both for Bobby and the cause of American chess. In a letter published in Chess Life and Review, he made a moving plea to Bobby's sportsmanship and appealed to him not to insist on the 9:9 clause.
He reminded Bobby that all along he had himself fought for equal opportunity for both the players and now he should not forego his principles just because he was wearing the crown.
There was no doubt about the sincerity of the man.This book, Russians versus Fischer is a testimony to Edmondson's tireless battles on Bobby's behalf till the end. As for the American chess community,it was divided. Players like Robert Byrne, Larry Evans and Andy Soltis cautioned that endorsing Bobby's demands would only harm him in the end and also hurt the wider interests of the chess world.
Robert Byrne who had known Bobby from his boyhood days,
wrote an article, Bobby Fischer's fear of losing in New York Times. He argued that Bobby was afraid of losing to Karpov, and it was this irrational fear that was the cause of his unwillingness to play a match against Karpov in conditions that Byrne considered fair.A regular war of words among readers ensued on the pages of Chess Life and Review. It was all in vain.There was no way of persuading Bobby to play any chess, let alone the world championship match. His descent into the abyss of unreality had begun.
To be continued
Notes:
1)Kasparov has spoken and written extensively on Fischer and Karpov.Part IV and V of My Great Predecessors are dedicated to them. The quote here is only a summary of his thoughts. A better way of understanding his argument is to read his interviews on those books.Here are the links:
http://www/chesscafe.com/text/gkint2004.pdf
http://www/chesscafe.com/text/skittles274.pdf
2)According to Kasparov, Fischer came to the conclusion that Karpov would be his challenger immediately after the Spassky match, although the Candidates' Final with Korchnoi was still pending.
3)Robert Byrne was a well-wisher of Bobby and one of the sanest voices in American chess. He was keen that Bobby should overcome his subconscious fears and beat Karpov. His loss to his younger rival in the US championship 1963-1964 is one of the greatest games ever played. It is included in Fischer's book, My 60 Memorable Games.
4)The best source for the debate on the aborted Match is the Chess Life and Review DVD Collection:The Bobby Fischer Era (1956-1969 and 1969-1975).
| 3536 reads | 38 comments |
4 votes:
