Dis-covering Bobby Fischer: Bobby Fischer's life in 1970s after the championship match

UPDATE: More detailed and in-depth research about the topic is here: https://www.chess.com/blog/Ruhubelent/dis-covering-bobby-fischer-bobby-fischers-life-in-1970s-after-the-championship-match 

BOBBY ATTENDS BOBBY FISCHER DAY and gives speech

Source: Chess Life and Review, December 1972.

On the 22nd of September, 1972, Bobby Fischer day was held in New York. This day is covered by Chess Life and review’s December 1972 edition. Bobby Fischer was honoured by the City Mayor John V.Lindsay. Bobby Fischer gave a short speech there upon recieving his medal. Here is the footage of Bobby talking on his day: USA BOBBY FISHER And here is the link of the relevant release of the magazine: http://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/1972/1972_12.pdf

BOBBY AMONG THE SPORTSMEN OF THE YEAR 1972:

In the Soviet News Agency TASS’ “sportsman of the year award” 1972 Bobby Fischer got 4th place. The preceeding sportsmen were (in descending order): 1) Valery Borzov, a sprinter from the Soviet Union 2) Mark Spitz, an American swimmer 3) Alexander Nedven, a Soviet wrestler.

BOBBY'S PLAN FOR 1973 and 1974 and rematch with Spassky:

In September 1973, a year after he won the championship, according to Bobby’s attorney for 1974 Bobby Fischer was planning the following:

1. An exhibition tour in Europe for $50 000 (fifty thousand).
2. A match with the Dutch olympic team for $10 000 (ten thousand)
3. A re-match with Boris in which the winner would get million dollars and the loser would get $150K and $200K.

Source: FISCHER TO GIVE CHESS EXHIBITIONS - The New York times, August 30 1973.

According to the same New York Times article

1. Fischer was offered advertisement projects for $2.5 million
2. Fischer was reported to be in a psychological crisis but his attorney, Stanley Rader, denied it saying “He is healthy.”

While in Philippines in October 1973, reports the New York Times’ 28th of OCtober 1973 edition, Fischer himself challenged Spassky into a rematch. The article quotes Fischer as following:

“I'm interested in a rematch. I want to put a stop to all talk that I'm resigning. This is not true. I want to challenge Spassky, The Russians have been saying I'm afraid of him. And so I'm challenging him to a rematch although I'm the world champion”

In the next section, I will talk of speculations of Fischer abandoning chess completely was out there as early as June 1973. The above quote shows those speculations were really in circulation.

Spassky won the USSR chess championship 1973, here is Robert Byrne’s analysis of Spassky’s performance: Chess: Another Fischer‐Spassky? Possibly, Quite Possibly

On the 29th of November 1973 edition of the New York Times, the possibility of the special match between Spassky and Fischer is seemingly eliminated by the USSR Chess Federation Vice President Victor Baturinsky. Here is the quote attributed to Baturinsky:

“After noting that no official proposal for a rematch has been received by the Soviet Chess Federation and that competition to determine an official challenger is under way, Mr. Baturinsky asked, “In this context is there any need to comment further on reports that Fischer is allegedly going to challenge Spassky to a return match?””

On the 23rd of October 1973 edition of the New York Times Bobby Fischer says the following in the opening ceremony of the Manila 1973 Chess tournament:

“that's not true” of reports that he was no longer interested in defending the world chess championship that he won last year from Boris Spassky of the Soviet Union. In Manila, where he helped open a chess tournament, Mr. Fischer said he would like to defend his title once a year and hang on to it until at least 1983. “Why don't the Russians challenge me?” he asked. “They can offer me a lot of money if they think they can beat me.”

Bobby Fischer made the ceremonial moves (directly on television and before a crowd of 10,000) in the Araneta Coliseum*, Quezon City, Metro Manila. Here is the link of the news report in advance by the NYT about Fischer performing ceremonial moves. Source: Notes on People The New York Times 4th of October, 1973.

Looking at an earlier news report, June 1973, it was already being discussed whether Fischer would ever play chess again, with some of his friends saying he does not follow chess tournaments anymore. Source: Fischer's Friends Wonder if He'll Play Chess Again

According to the same news article, Fischer did not accept 1 + 0.4 million dollars offer from International Hilton in Las Vegas for a rematch with Spassky or any other player Fischer himself would choose. + The offerers submitted all of the television rights to Fischer and his opponent, it was estimated that Fischer could have earned 2 million dollars from the match. It is reported Fischer instead asked for 10 million dollars.

The same article reports the following:

When he re turned from Reykjavik he had $2.5‐million cold in offers, and another $7‐million or so pending. All he had to do was sign his name. He didn't sign a thing.”

If we go into earlier months, Chess Life&Review’s January 1973 version had an interview held between Gligorich, Spassky and Fischer. Fischer confirmed that he wants to play one more match with Spassky, without waiting for 3 years for the next formal and official title defense. Here is an excerpt:

Gligoric: May I confirm' the opinion you expressed be· fore: would you have another match with Spassky?

Fischer: Definitely, yes. Definitely if the money is there, we afe going to have a return match, there's no question ...

Here is the link of the January 1973 edition of the Chess Life&Review: http://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/1973/1973_01.pdf 

According to another The New York times article, October 7th, 1974 , American Grandmaster Robert Byrne similarly thought “Bobby would rather retire undefeated than risk the possibility of losing”. A week later, Bobby Fischer’s biographer Frank Brady rebutted Robert Byrne on the same newspaper, stating:

“His remarks are at the very least extravagant and certainly unkind.” … “Fischer is clearly obsessional about not compromising his principles even though he lost a minimum of $1,800,000 —the loser's share of the purse—by not giving in and probably as much as $3,200,000 since he undoubtedly would have defeated Karpov. It is the monomanical dedication to what he believes in that has forged him into the iron‐willed chessplayer that he is. Fischer has no fear of failing. He has fear of being forced into what are clearly concessions.”

You can read the whole article here: LETTER

BOBBY ON ATTENDING CHESS OLYMPIAD 1972 and 1974:

There was a chess olympiad in September 1972, Fischer did not attend it. The New York Times 27 September 1972 edition wrote that the lawyer of Bobby Fischer said Fischer would have played in the Olympiad for a reasonable amount instead of the $2K he was offered. The reasonable amount was, according to his attorney, $25K (twenty five thousand US dollars).

And concerning the 1974 Nice Chess Olympiad, 9th of April 1974 edition of the New York Times reported the following:

“The world chess champion, Bobby Fischer, has laid down the conditions under which he will agree to play in the chess olympiad in Nice, France, in June, and as usual, he wants to be alone, The organizers said yesterday that the American Chess Federation has informed them that Mr. Fischer will go to Nice only if his matches are played in a building completely separate from where the others are played. “A separate room in the same building will not be enough it has to be a separate building,” an organizers statement said. Now they'll have to consult with the International Chess Federation and the tournament referee be fore replying to Mr. Fischer's demands.”

In a 1982 release of the Soviet Chess magazine 64, whose editor was Anatoly Karpov at the time, featured a content from Anatoly Karpov in which Karpov said it is very unlikely Fischer will play chess again in the near future. Karpov addded Fischer’s nerves had deteriorated due to the 9 years of absence of activity.

MATCH NEGOTIATIONS WITH KARPOV: OFFICIAL and PRIVATE MATCH:

A match between Karpov and Fischer was very likely in the year 1976. Here is the course of the events:

• The idea of a private match between the two was proposed by Anatoly Karpov, after he assumed the world championship title. 15th of April, 1975 edition of the New York Times featured a news article which reported Anatoly Karpov initiating the process by inviting Fischer to hold talks about the terms between themselves. 4 days later the same newspaper reported the advance of the exchanges, Campomanes was the mediator between the two.
• In the year 1976 Karpov, Fischer and the FIDE president Campomanes held a meeting in Tokyo . Karpov narrates the three negotiated the match between Karpov and Fischer. According to Karpov, they had agreed on everything except the title of the match. Fischer insisted on the match to be named “Absolute championship of chess professionals.” Karpov believes “this was the final excuse for him not to play” because, says Karpov, he insisted to have the title of Absolute World Championship of Chess Professionals.” It seems the contemporary reports contradict Karpov.
• On 9th of September, 1976 New York Times reports Campomanes saying the match is very likely and the negotiations took a step further since their Tokyo meeting. The price quoted for the match is $3.5 million plus other ancillary rights such as radio and TV.
• According to another contemporary news article by the New York Times , August 29, 1976, article titled “Karpov and Fischer Meet To Discuss a Title Match”, after the Tokyo meeting the two kept on meeting and their next meeting was in Cordoba, Spain.

If the title of the match was the excuse of Fischer to not play, presumably he would not keep travelling abroad to meet Karpov only to negotiate for a match he is not going to play.

BOBBY'S DEMANDS DISCUSSED:

Some top level grandmasters of the time commentated on the demands of Fischer. Here are the ones covered in the New York Times on the 7th of October, 1974 :

• Anatoly Karpov: “the terms are ungentlemanly and unfeasible.” “To play until 10 victories is an awful thing.” “The match can last three or four months, and it is impossible to play chess so much; it will cease being an art and turn into forced labor.”
• Larry Evans: “unfair”.
• Bent Larsen: “his proposal was absolutely unrealistic”. “A five‐month match would be horrible for everybody involved —players, officials, journalists, readers, spectators — everybody,” … “The advance of chess does not depend on one person. If he does not want 10 play he is free to stay away from chess competition and everybody is free to fantasize about his reasons.”
• Svetozar Gligoric: It seems he supported Fischer’s demands. Here is what was quoted from him: “I would consider competing with Fischer under any circumstances, for it favors the popularization of the noble game.” To charges that an open‐ended match could bog down into an endless struggle, Gligoric said “a match of undertermined length would guarantee ever better, more competitive and exciting chess.”

Unrelated to the quoted news article, Botwinnik said Fischer’s demands are unsportsmanship. Korchnoi said they made sense and Fischer, as a world champion, deserved the 9–9 draw odds advantage. Here is the link of an article from 1976 about Korchnoi supporting Fischer: Russian Chess Star Seeks Dutch Asylum Soviet Press’ reaction to Korchnoi’s defection into the west: Soviet Scoffs at Korchnoi's Bid For Asylum in the Netherlands

• Bobby Fischer responded to the criticism to his demands on the November 1974 edition of Chess Life&Review magazine. Here is the link of the relevant edition of the Magazine: http://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/1974/1974_11.pdf You can read Bobby’s responses there. I am gonna touch here one point only:

“Here's my answer to Mr. Binder and then to you. Larry. Mr. Binder should have read more carefu lly, because he seems under t he illusion that if 9 wins to 9, r win the match. But I said 9 wins to 9 retains title. That's a big difference . If my match with Spassky would have been 12 to 12 he would have retained the title-not won the match (and not even having to win a single game a t that, if it so turned out every game was a draw). The money would be split equa lly and Ihe match declared a draw_but Spassky would have kept the title. Okay? Nothing unfa ir there ! Then Mr. Binder says, '·the challenger must win by at least two." Yes. But the champion must also win by a t least two. When the champion gets 9 points the match isn't automatically over, although at that stage his title Is securc. It continues until he wins 10 games unless the challenger wins 9 first to tie”

DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE OFFICIAL MATCH:

For the 1975 match under the FIDE auspices, Fischer preferred to play in Manila, they offered 5 million prize money. Karpov on the other hand preferred to play in Ethiopia. In another article by the New York Times, February 4th, 1975, it is stated Karpov prefered Milan. The article gives the bids as follows: Mexico City - $400K (four hundred thousand dollars), Milan - $440K (four hundred and forty thousand dollars), Manila 5 million dollars. The 18th of February, 1975 edition of the New York Times, reported the Soviets rejected the bid of Manila’s 5 million dollars, the Soviet objection to the Manila bid reportedly was the fact that the telegram stating Fischer's preference for Manila had not been signed by him as required but by Col. Edmond B. Edmundson, executive director of the United States Chess Federation. Karpov, a Russian, had expressed a preference for Milan, Italy, as the site. The same article reports it was now up to FIDE to decide and the match was scheduled to begin on the first of June.

Anatoly Karpov was informed of Fischer’s resignal when Karpov was playing tennis. Ed Edmondson, then the US chess federation executive, called Karpov “on-paper champion”, to which Karpov responded to in his press conference (personal translation, I speak Russian) with something like: “In fact the term on-paper champion fits Fischer who had not played a single game since he became world Champion.” Here is a footage prepared and broadcasted by the Soviet press:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW9i7gGf9bY

Going on with the private match advancements, here is what the New York Times quoted from Karpov on the 12th of April, 1973 (9 days after Fischer was stripped off of the title):

“The new world chess champion, Anatoly Karpov, is willing to play Bobby Fischer in a private match—though not the match that Mr. Fischer forfeited—but says he will not discuss it with United States Chess Federation officials. The match would take place only “on conditions we would precisely agree on between ourselves,” Mr. Karpov told an interviewer for 64, the weekly chess supplement of the newspaper Sovetsky Sport. He said that “psychological pressure” as well as “chess superiority” had earned Mr. Fischer his “right to be called the best” between 1970 and

“Besides splendid chess performances,” the 23‐year‐old Mr. Karpov said, “Fischer introduced into our creative world such fuss and con fusion that chess masters suddenly were in urgent need of diplomats, speakers and lawyers to prove once again the truth; which earlier was so simple and clear‐cut.”

Then on the 20th of August 1975 edition of the New York Times there is a context about the possibility of match still existing. Here is the link: Notes on People

The 14th of August 1976 edition of the New York times have the following about the negoations between Karpov and Fischer:

“Anatoly Karpov “cannot understand where reports came from” that he and Bobby Fischer agreed on a date for an exhibition chess match when they met in Tokyo two weeks ago. In an interview with Sovetsky Sport, the official Soviet sport daily, the world champion said yesterday that their conversation “had a general character,” but he did not deny outright that the two had agreed to play Mr. Karpov won his title from Mr. Fischer by default in 1975.”

On the 10th of August 1976 edition of the New York Times, Anatoly Karpov is quoted as saying that he will give up the title in case Bobby Fischer wins their unofficial match they are negoatiatiing in Tokyo. FIDE president Max Euwe is quoted as saying that he does not think the match will take place.

COURT CASES RELATED TO BOBBY FISCHER:

CHESTER FOX SUES BOBBY:

In 1975 Chester Fox sued Bobby Fischer for [allegedly] sabotaging the filming rights of the company during the World Chess Championship match of 1972. It is reported on the 6th of October 1972 edition of the New York Times: Bobby Fischer Sued For $3.25‐Million Over Chess Filming The company was claiming 3 million dollars for damages and 250 000 for punitive damages. Here is the link of another news article about Chester Fox suing Fischer: Fox Plans to Sue The New York Times, 16th of August 1972.

23rd of June 1974 article of the New York Times gives some details about this case. You can read the article, here is my summary:

The case was subjected to repeated delays due to Fischer not co-operating or even talking to his lawyers. His lawyers was unable to talk to him and his lawyer Paul G.Marshall withdrew from the case. Then on the 7th of January 1975 edition of the New York times some updates are given about this court case. Here is the link of the article: Notes on People And here is the related text:

“Bobby Fischer, who has proven so elusive in legal matters that a $3.25‐million damage suit against him has been delayed repeatedly since 1972, was ordered yesterday to appear personally to testify in State Supreme Court. Justice Hyman Korn granted a motion made on behalf of Chester Fox, who had held the rights to film Fischer's 1972 world‐championship chess match in Iceland and sued after the player barred the movie cameras. The judge's order followed unsuccessful efforts to get Fischer to make a deposition in California. No date was set for Fischer's appearance on the stand.”

BJELICA FINED FOR CREATING FAKE STORIES ABOUT BOBBY FISCHER:

Then on the 28th of March 1973 edition of the New York Times there is another case related to Bobby Fischer. According to the report, a magazine named Plavi Vjesnik of Zagreb was publishing fake stories about Bobby Fischer, thus they were ordered to pay Bobby 360 dollars. The articles were being written by Dimitrije Bjelica, who was described as a journalist and friend of Bobby Fischer. Here is the link of the NYT article: Notes on People

BOBBY FISCHER SUES THE BOOK "Bobby Fischer against the world":

On the 27th of November 1975 edition of the New York Times, There is a news about Bobby Fischer winning a court case concerning his own priacy he filed against a a book author named “Bobby Fischer against the world.” Here is the digitised version of the text:

In one of his infrequent public :appearances, Bobby Fischer was in a Los Angeles courtroom this week, from his home in Pasadena, and won the opening move in his $20‐million invasion‐of‐privacy suit against Brad Darrach, author of “Bobby Fischer vs. the Rest of the World,” and the book's publishers.. The court ruled that, because of the dethroned chess champion's “modest” financial means, the case could be tried in Los Angeles instead of New York ‐‐ provided that the “almost unintelligible” complaint, originally filed by Mr. Fisher him self, be rewritten by his law‐

BOBBY ACCUSED OF ASSUALTING A WOMAN:

Then there is another report of a case related to Bobby Fischer on the 16th of April 1978 edition of the New York Times. This time Fischer is accused of assaulting a woman. The charges were dismissed but Bobby still paid cash to the woman. Besides this court case, the content includes some things about Fischer’s relation with a church and his behaviours. Here is the link if you want to read: Headliners 2nd of July 1977 edition of the New York Times also have some content about Bobby Fischer’s relationship with the church. The article says Fischer accused the church of accepting more than $90,000 of his money and as having criticized the elder Mr. Armstrong for using “Madison Avenue” proselytizing techniques to gain control of church members’ minds. It is also said Fischer spent 5 years with them. Here is the link of the relevant edition: Church Founder Excommunicates His Son, Garner Ted Armstrong 

BOBBY HIDING FROM THE POLICE:

Bobby was hiding from the police. The New York Times 09/11/1977 edition reports it. According to the article, “Mr. Fischer is being sought on a warrant for batter, treapassing and disturbing the peace, all misdemeanors. He was named in a complaint brought by an author, Holly Ruiz, who said he punched her after she quoted critical statements that he allegedly made about the church during conversations about the religious movement.”

MATCH WITH KORCHNOI?

In the year 1977 (and as long as 1981) Viktor Korchnoi was trying to set up a match with Bobby Fischer. Israel was going to be the sponsor of the match (in case it took place). Here is the New York Times report of this news: Korchnoi Seeks Chess Match With Fischer 9nth of January, 1977 edition.

Samuel Reshevsky, longtime chess rival of Bobby Fischer, wrote an article about the 21st game of the match between Fischer and Spassky. You can read it on this link: What Could Have Been Had the Play Resumed - The New York Times, 2nd of Septem ber, 1972. 11th of September 1981 edition of the New York Times has an article in which Reshevsky is quoted about Bobby Fischer as “I have played all the best players of this century, and they were all powerful, but I would have to put him No. 1,'' ''If he came back, it would contribute a lot to the game.''” Here is the link of the article: OLD GRANDMASTER PROVES HE STILL HAS THE TOUCH Reshevsky analysyng chess of 19th century: CHESS: Paul Morphy in 19th Century Devised Modern Principles

The new york times 29th of October, 1972 has an article written by Robert Byrne. The article attibutes an analysis to Svetozar Gligoric if you want to read it here is the link: Ches: Spassky's Problem Is Solved (But Too Late) by Gligoric Gligoric makes some assessments about the match.

The New York Times 15th of August 1972 has some quotes from gransmasters about the match. Here is some sayings by other grandmasters during the match: The Nobility of Chess: Every Grandmaster Is a King

A magazine named Chess Life editor writing about Bobby Fischer in 1977: Letters To the Editor

SOME EVENTS FROM 1970S ABOUT BORIS SPASSKY:

5th of November 1972 edition of the New York Times has a news which is Barely related to Fischer but I decided to share it anyway:

“MOSCOW, Nov. 4 (Reuters) —Valeri Chekhov, a 17‐year‐old Moscow schoolboy, has taken a leaf out of Bobby Fischer's book by beating the former world chess champion, Boris Spassky, the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda reported yesterday. He was playing the Soviet grandmaster at the same time as five other young players, representing the Moscow Pioneers, the Soviet equvalent of Boy Scouts.”

Here is the link of the article: Spassky Loses Again

It seems after Spassky lost the title to Fischer he was given a second class flighht ticket to Moscov, so says the New York Times 11th of September 1972 edition: Spassky Flies Home On 2d‐Class Ticket; Finds the Air Chilly

The only concession authorities made to him was that he did not have to open his bags for customs inspection. … He had to wait in line for passport control, get up for his bags and fill in a declaration saying he was carrying no arms or ammunition.

“I asked Bobby if he was going to play in San Antonio, and he said no, the money wasn't enough,” Spassky said.

Here is the 1 minute footage of the post match interview of Spassky: ICELAND BORIS SPASSKY There Spassky states Fischer won because Fischer was better. He says he does not regret the loss. He says he will rest and the title was a burden to him. And he states how Fischer’s lateness affected him, he says he was affected by that.

In 1974 Spassky played Byrne and gave a simul in the USA. Here is a footage from the simul: USA SPASSKY | AP Archive Spassky’s coach during the match Nikolai Krogius wrote that Fischer got a camera as a gift at the end of the match and asked the gifter to gift Spassky a camera too. The New York Times article from the 8th of September reports Fischer sent Spassky a camera as a gift.

Here is the NYT article about the visit and the simul: Spasshy Visiting City on Business and Pleasure

Here is the footage from Spassky’s visit to Puerto Rico: PUERTO RICO CHESS

Here is an another report by the NYT about Spassky’s marriage to a French woman being balked by the Soviets: Spassky Says Soviet Is Balking Marriage To a Frenchwoman

Another 1978 article including Fischer, Karpov and Korchnoi: GRUDGE MATCH IN BAGUIO CITY

In the year 1977 Fischer played against a computer named Greenblatt. Robert Byrne published an analysis of those games in the year 1978. If you want to read here is the link: Chess:

At the end of the year 1974 Bobby Fischer probably attended the funeral of Morris J.Kasper, who was the founder of the American Chess Federation. Here is New York Times article about him: MORRIS J. KASPER, CHESS PATRON, 72 New York Times, December the 15th, 1974.

In 1976 US Chess Championship a teenager named Rhode asserted he could beat Bobby Fischer. Link of the NYT article about the event: Chess Lions and Lambs Clash

For now these are enough, I will write the part 2 of this series. More to come:

• Bobby Fischer in 80s.
• Revelations of a woman who acted as a mediator between the organiser and sponsor of the 1992 match.
• Fischer visiting Budapest
• Fischer and Karpov later meeting in Budapest.
• Bobby Fischer negotiating simul against IBM Deep Blue (1990s).
• Bobby Fischer interrogated by the Philippines police (1990s).
• Bobby Fischer sharing an analysis in 2006.
• Bobby Fischer offering marriage to a young woman and woman declining (1980s)

Very interesting story! Thanks a lot, reading with a pleasure!

One thing from this content that  is not narrated about the 1975 match is Fischer's clauses being misrepresented. Till I discovered Fischer's writing I was of the same opinion: The champion (Fischer in this case) reaches 9 and declared winner of the match. Turns out that is not the case. The champion (Fischer himself) had to win by 2 in order to win the match.

If the score was 8-8 and Fischer scored 9th, the match would not end there. Fischer still had to play to win the match. Only if Karpov wins the 9th then the match would be declared a draw and money would be split equally. In order to win the sum allocated to the winner, Fischer would still need to win by 2 otherwise the money would have been split equally.

In short, the champion was still enjoying the draw odds of the former system and both sides had to score 2 more wins to win the match.

Very nice article.

Bobby Fischer is the Tiger King of Chess. His personal life is far more entertaining to me than what he did on the board. From his strange associations, to his bizarre beliefs, and his erratic demands, he is equal parts Joe Exotic, Johnny Lee Riches, and John Nash.

Bobby was a genius troubled by his inner demons. Which provides a good opportunity to say that if you struggle with mental illness that’s okay. We all have our struggles in life and seeking help for mental illness is not a weakness, but a strength. People care about you and are willing to help. Bobby deserved, and we all deserve to live our best lives.

"One thing from this content that  is not narrated about the 1975 match is Fischer's clauses being misrepresented. Till I discovered Fischer's writing I was of the same opinion: The champion (Fischer in this case) reaches 9 and declared winner of the match. Turns out that is not the case. The champion (Fischer himself) had to win by 2 in order to win the match.

If the score was 8-8 and Fischer scored 9th, the match would not end there. Fischer still had to play to win the match. Only if Karpov wins the 9th then the match would be declared a draw and money would be split equally. In order to win the sum allocated to the winner, Fischer would still need to win by 2 otherwise the money would have been split equally.

In short, the champion was still enjoying the draw odds of the former system and both sides had to score 2 more wins to win the match"

Fischer's whole idea was so unfair that it is difficult to paint it as some sort of "equal" system. It was supposed to be a first to ten wins match, but the challenger didn't even have a chance to win the title by scoring 10-9 in the match. He had to score 10-8 to get the title. Fischer would only need 9 wins to keep the title.

I think everything Fischer demanded and said during the first years as Champion already showed that he had little interest in playing. He was going to defend the title every year, and the matches were supposed to be first to ten wins, he was going to play Spassky outside the qualifying system, etc. Kasparov and Karpov only got to 5 wins in a match that went on for almost 5 months. 

Fischer's ideas, if he had meant them, would have resulted in him playing without interruption all year round. He had played in all 42 games the last five years in 1975, and didn't follow chess. Suddenly he would play like 75 games a year, year in year out? I don't think anyone believed that, least of all Fischer himself.

@Fabelhaft, nor did Fischer had a chance to win the match by scoring 10-9. He also had to score 10-8. Whoever reaches the 9 points late would draw the match - champion or challenger. The only thing the champion enjoyed here is to *secure* his title once he reaches 9, he does not *win* the match by scoring 9. Keep in mind, to secure the title the champion had to score 9 wins whereas in old (or later) systems all the champion needed was to not *lose*. That is all. In old system the champion could play just not to lose whereas in Fischer's system he had to score at least 9 wins if he wanted to retain his title.

Interesting thread.

@denverhigh, if you are aware of unknown photos share please. Sharing the photos that appear on google search is hardly useful

Nor did the champion had a chance to win by 10-9. So did the champion had to win by 10-8. Nothing unfair there. In the former system, to retain the title the champion did not even need to win a single game, let alone 9. In both systems, the challenger had to win 1 more game so that the champion is not able to retain the title. but in Fischer's system the champion had to win 9 games to retain the title. The champion would have such huge burden compared to the former system.

Kasparov and Karpov were just playing short grandmaster draws for most of the time - Karpov and Korchnoi had 11 won games in 32 games.

I am not favouring Fischer's system over the former system, unlimited match encourages passive play more than it does active play because neither side is under any pressure. Time is not shrinking, budget is not shrinking. Yes, you have to score 10 (or 6) wins VS at least 1 win in the former system but in the former system you had to score that at least 1 win in a *limited* time whereas you have unlimited time to score 6 or 10.

But on 1 thing I support Fischer's idea: both the champion and the challenger should feel pressure in the limited match system. Like: 24 games match, the champion can retain his title by draw but he has to score at least 2 wins to retain his title. If the score is 1-1  (0-0)at the end of the match, the champ is stripped off the title, the title is vacant and money is split equally. Next cycle, there will be 1948-like tournament and the champion will be elected in that way. 

In this way, both the champ and the challenger is under pressure. Both have to take risks, both have to play for a win and all of these burden is under a limited time, meaning they are under time pressure as well. In order to retain the title, the champ has to win at least 1 game and then not lose any.

As for putting the challenger under pressure, the challenger has to score at least 2 wins so that he can win the title. If challenger wins by 1-0, he does not become world champion - he gets more money (like 52%-48%) but not champion. The champion is stripped off the title, the title is vacant. The challenger may win 2-1, or 3-2 or 4-3 or 2-0 or by any score other than 1-0 and he becomes the champion.

As such, both sides are under heavy fire: both sides has to score 2 wins so that they can own the title, so that they can get 66% of the prize money.

I oppose the current system as well: the champion lacks draw odds advantage. Why the championn has to have it? Because the challenger has to prove that he is superior to the reigning champion, when you draw him the challenger demonstrates that he is equal to him. but that is not enough to be champion, you have to defeat him so that you can be champion. It is not to see if you are a co-champion, rather it is to see you are the champion. So, you have to demonstrate that you are superior to the one that has proved to be the best.

As such, I partially agree with Fischer.

   ---   Yep.

     You can parse the language any way you choose but the bottom line on Fischer's conditions was: if he won nine games before the challenger won ten, Bobby won the title "World Champion"; the challenger had to win ten games before Bobby won nine to  get the title. The challenger (Karpov as it turned out) had to win the match by two games to win the title, Bobby could actually lose the match 10-9 and still be world champion.

Yet the biggest challenge was still ahead.

I did heard this news. Back in those days, there were even rumours of Fischer negotiating a match with Kramnik. there were speculations of him playing women's world chess champion. But all of them being about Chess960.

Also, in 2006 he allegedly shared an analysis on a TV phone call. All will be in my second part of this blog but I do not know when will I share it as the first part did not generate attraction. The second part will be on my blog

Are you Ed Trice? If so, can you demonstrate, please? Then, please, tell more about the process.

Also, the article states that you (pre-supposing it really is you) proved via a computer that white has a forced win in Capa's 10x8 version. That seems preposterous and b.s. Not even an ordinary chess is proven in such way, and you would prove bigger one?