8852 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
e4 is "best by test" to quote Fischer, but I'm not sure what he meant. Probably, that he won more with it or liked it better.
e4 and d4 are both good. it's just a matter of preference. i like d4.
He played 1.d4 in his title match vs Spassky several times, so apparently he changed his mind. Case closed.
I think he played 1. c4, and some of those games transposed to the QGD.
NimzoRoy, no he didn't. Only e4 and c4.
Actually Fischer did not play 1 d4 in any of the games with Spassky in 1972 but he did play 1 c4 ....
What are u talking about, Nimzo? He only played e4 and c4.
Read the posts above, conehead. 3 people have already said that.
In the book "The unknown bobby fischer", fischer played 1.d4 against eugenio gomez in seville in a simul game in 1970 and lost.
He ended up playing QGD by transposition vs Spassky 4x and EO once, although it's true he opened up with 1.c4 in all 5 games. I guess transpositions don't count and he only played QGD because he had no choice in the matter right?
I can only speculate, but I assume he spotted something in Spassky's QGD that made him want to face it. It certainly would catch Boris unaware, after a lifetime of opening with 1.e4. Then he just had to figure out a way to reach the QGD, with opening with that inspid 1.d4..........
I wasn't talking about positions that could arise out of 1. d4 though, I was talking about that specific move itself. I don't understand the "on principle" part of what Fischer said.
Ah the pschology in chess. A lasker approach. Maybe Fischer never liked the style of play of the great Lasker but he certainly used the latters approach to combat. (just my opinion based and inspired by reading Benko's "winning with chess psychology" )
Fischer once said, "Why play a dozen or more moves preparing e2-e4 when you can play it on the first move?"
I've always loved this quote:
"When I asked Fischer why he had not played a certain move in our game, he replied: "Well, you laughed when I wrote it down" - Mikhail Tal"
Also, after 1970, Fischer occssionally played 1.b3: Fischer - Tukmakov,V 7/19/70 Buenos Aires and Fischer - Filip,M 11/13/70 in Palma de Mallorca, among others. This rather non-commital move usually transposed to the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack.
Young Fischer played 1.NF3
11/21/2013 - Entrapment
by Iyer_p a few minutes ago
11/14/2013 - Adventure Time
11/9/2013 - White Mates in 4
11/8/2013 - Mate in 5
by Iyer_p 2 minutes ago
cant unusual openings be used to fox stronger opponents more often than not?
by Ziryab 2 minutes ago
12/6/2013 - Mate in 8
by tanmay_chakrabarti 7 minutes ago
CONTEST: Caption this Image of Anand & Carlsen
by Disgruntled_Sheep 7 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by badger_song 17 minutes ago
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by mehrdad-shirzad 21 minutes ago
Chess Is Garbage, Here Are My Own Openings
by ifoody 28 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!