The Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961

**Wayne Komer** · Monday, 20th April, 2020, 12:01 AM

The Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961

April 20, 2020

Game Two

Adapting a little known suggestion of Modern Chess Openings (page 124, note f), Fischer emerges from the opening with a strong attack for a pawn. Reshevsky, although probably taken by surprise, bravely holds his own until time pressure takes its toll. Eventually, however, he blunders allowing a little combination at the expense of his queen.

Reshevsky-Fischer Match, New York City
Game 2, July 18, 1961
Fischer, Robert J. – Reshevsky, Samuel
B72 Sicilian, Dragon, Classical, Nottingham variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 O-O 8.f4 d6 9.Nb3 Be6 10.g4 d5 11.f5 Bc8 12.exd5 Nb4 13.Bf3 gxf5 14.a3 fxg4 15.Bg2 Na6 16.Qd3 e6 17.O-O-O Nxd5 18.h3 g3 19.Rhg1 Qd6 20.Bxd5 exd5 21.Nxd5 Kh8 22.Bf4 Qg6 23.Qd2 Bxh3 24.Rxg3 Bg4 25.Rh1 Rfe8 26.Ne3 Qe4 27.Qh2 Be6 28.Rxg7 Kxg7 29.Qh6+ Kg8 30.Rg1+ Qg6 31.Rxg6+ fxg6 32.Nd4 Rad8 33.Be5 Rd7 34.Nxe6 Rxe6 35.Ng4 Rf7 36.Qg5 Rf1+ 37.Kd2 h5 38.Qd8+ 1-0

Position after Black’s 27….Be6

- As I recall, Frank Brady relates in "Profile of a Prodigy" that Allan Kaufman of the American Chess Foundation discussed with some others circa 1960 that Fischer had some psychological problems and that they should consider getting help for him. Then someone asked a question along the lines of "What if he gets better and gives up chess?" The room went very quiet and they never discussed that idea again.> Also imagine what we would have lost if lithium had been invented in Van Gogh's time

- First of all you don't cure, Aspergers, you mentor it and second of all it seems that once again the game isn't being discussed.

- Reshevsky on Fischer:

Sammy's book on the 1972 Fischer - Spassky match is a tad cold towards Fischer. But of course that is possibly me comparing all the other books I have on this historic match.

In the forward he list all the reasons why Spassky lost rather than why Fischer won.

Fischer does get the credit for playing some good moves, especially good defensive moves (the chief reason why Fischer won according to Sammy was his opening prep and his defensive play.)

"He [Fischer] lacked brilliance, but his defensive play was good."

As always Sammy's notes are crystal clear but you do get the impression he wants the reader to think Spassky lost the title rather than Fischer winning it.

"The blunders committed by Spassky were incredible."

"Fischer was also not in his best form, he made errors in a number of games."

On the whole Sammy says he was disappointed with the match. (Maybe he was disappointed with the result.)

A good book though with Sammy's usual clear analysis and thoughts. It's does the job.

- Reshevsky's books seem to have disappeared. I never see any of them in used book stores, though I see many books by other chess authors.

- The Fischer-Reshevsky match might offer some of the best "fighting" chess games out there. I don't know if there's another match between two players who absolutely hated to lose, especially to each other.

I always thought that was a major reason why they didn't get along that well. They were a lot alike. Both were rocks when they thought they were right. Fischer's attitude is well known but Sam could've been equally stubborn when he thought he was right. That Benko deal back in 1975 is a good example.

Maybe what made the situation worse with Fischer is that I believed Sam, though he respected his play, didn't feel Fischer's take on the game was correct. Resigning yourself to sitting in a room with a chessboard for hours, memorizing variations and games just didn't make sense and wasn't "real" chess.

Yes, an old fashion view but from a guy who would often rather listen to good music or cook his obligatory kosher meal rather than think about chess and still played a great game.

- Believe it or not, 28. Nd2 actually LOSES to the astonishingly brilliant 28...Bxb2+!! Which leads to checkmate. (When I get home I'll post the line). This - ironically - means Fischer's instinct to take the bishop was correct.

- Hold it !!!! I can't believe that that "checkmating" line has been overlooked all these years/decades.

- The queen is lost after 28.Nd2, so 28....Qxh1+ is as good as there is. But assuming after 29.Qxh1 you are recommending 29....Nc5, 30.Rxg7 wins immediately (30....Kxg7 31. Qg2+ Kf8 32.Bd6+ Re7 33.Bxc5) .

- Fischer did accept ARB Thomas' point that 28 Nd2 would have left black with a lost position.

**Tom O'Donnell** · Monday, 20th April, 2020, 10:15 AM

Lionel Joyner should be better known. He made a comeback in the 80s, and even though it looked to me like his health wasn't great, he was still very strong, I would say at least FM strength. He was still keeping up with modern theory at the time. I played him a half-dozen or so times and he would routinely make reference to games that had been played only months previously. The guy really liked chess a lot.

**Wayne Komer** · Tuesday, 21st April, 2020, 12:01 AM

The Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961

April 21, 2020

In an earlier post we spoke of four greats of the game. As of June 1, 1961 their ages:

Samuel Reshevsky 49 years old
Mikhail Botvinnik 49 years old
Mikhail Tal 24 years old
Robert Fischer 18 years old

Game Three

Shortage of time induced Reshevsky to propose a draw very early in this game. And a serious positional disadvantage compels Fischer to accept. The prematurely final position holds but few chances for a draw for Black.

Reshevsky-Fischer Match, New York City
Game 3, July 20, 1961
Reshevsky, Samuel – Fischer, Robert J.
E40 Nimzo-Indian

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 O-O 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bd3 c5 9.Ne2 Nc6 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Bh5 12.Rb1 b6 13.Nf4 Bg6 14.g4 cxd4 15.cxd4 Rc8 16.Rb2 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 Ne7 18.g5 Ne8 19.e4 Ng6 20.Ne2 f6 21.gxf6 Nxf6 22.e5 Nh5 23.f4 Qh4 24.Qf3 Kh8 25.Be3 1/2-1/2

Position after Black’s 24…Kh8

Kmoch says that there is no satisfactory defense for Black’s Queen pawn.

- A likely continuation would be something like:
25... Ngxf4 26. Nxf4 Nxf4 27. Bxf4 g5 28. Qg3 Rxf4 29. Rxf4 Qxf4 30. Qxf4 gxf4 31. Rb5

and then either

31... Rd8 32. a4

Or

31... Rf3 32. Rxd5 Rxa3 33. e6 Re3 34. Rd8+ Kg7 35. d5

And White seems much better in either case. Though who knows, there may be improvements for Black somewhere, and with 15 moves to the time control, we have no idea how much or how little time Reshevsky had left. Probably very little, as he was famous for surviving steaming time pressure.

Game Four

Although, in this game, Fischer does not undertake the gambit which he tried in Game 2, the fighting is soon very lively nonetheless. Reshevsky introduces a little novelty and proves it playable with neat tactics.

A little later, however, he overreaches and loses a pawn. Still the damage has little significance, mainly owing to bishops of opposite colors. And Fischer’s violent attempt to make headway simply leads to definite equality and actually could have lost.

By and large, a captivating game, as colorful as any gambit can produce.

Game 4, July 24
New York City
Fischer, Robert J. – Reshevsky, Samuel
B35 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto, Uogele variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Be3 Bg7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 Ng4 9.Qxg4 Nxd4 10.Qd1 Nxb3 11.axb3 b6 12.Qd5 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 Qc7 14.O-O-O Qxc3 15.Bd4 Qc6 16.Qe5 f6 17.Qxe7 Bb7 18.f3 a5 19.Bxb6 Rac8 20.c4 Rfe8 21.Qd6 a4 22.Qxc6 Bxc6 23.b4 f5 24.exf5 gxf5 25.Kb2 Re2+ 26.Kc3 Rxg2 27.Rhg1 Rxg1 28.Rxg1+ Kf7 29.f4 Bd5 30.Bc5 Be6 31.Rd1 a3 32.Kb3 a2 33.Kxa2 Bxc4+ 34.Kb2 Be6 35.Kc3 Rc6 36.Rd3 d6 37.Rxd6 Rxd6 38.Bxd6 Bd5 39.b5 Ke6 40.Bb8 Be4 41.Kd4 Bh1 42.h4 h5 1/2-1/2

- Another terrific game by Reshevsky, using his new ( for that time ) idea of... Ng4 to neutralize Fischer's chances. And 11... b6!! What a sharp move! Maybe it was this game that gave Fischer the idea for his... b6 against Portisch, (Portisch vs Fischer, 1966). Kasparov says he thinks Fischer was very worried about the strong resistance Reshevsky was giving him (which might be why it prematurely ended) and he may have a point.

- 8...Ng4 wasn't quite Reshevsky's idea - according to chessbase database, it's already been played about 20 times before this game (starting from 1957), among others by Furman, Stein, and Eliskases. But at any rate, Reshevsky did put it to good use in games 4&6 of the match. In games 8&10 Fischer tried a Maroczy Bind with 5.c4, but also without achieving much (he could have won game 8, but it didn't have anything to do with the opening). So overall, with the exception of game 2 (Fischer vs Reshevsky, 1961), Reshevsky did quite a good job during the match with the Accelerated Dragon in neutralizing Fischer when he played White.

- This is one of the most interesting games in this match! I think Reshevsky's play was just marvelous. 14...Qxc3! 15.Qxa8 Qa1+ 16.Kd2 Qa5+ 17.c3 Qa2+ 18.Ke1 Ba6 threatening mate and forcing Fischer to sacrifice his queen for the f8 rook.

**Wayne Komer** · Wednesday, 22nd April, 2020, 12:00 AM

The Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961

April 22, 2020

Game Five

The exchange cannot be exactly compensated by pawns. For one pawn is too little, and two are more than enough. Therefore, the proper assessment depends on attendant positional circumstances. And these often pose difficult problems as they do in this game.

Reshevsky is the exchange up in a very tense end-game. He works out a winning line. But, taking matters too easily at a crucial stage he lets the win slip and actually loses

For that matter, the game is one of sharp vicissitudes throughout.

Game 5, July 27, 1961
Los Angeles, CA
Reshevsky, Samuel – Fischer, Robert J.
D42 QGD, Semi-Tarrasch

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nf3 c5 6.e3 Nc6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.a3 cxd4 10.exd4 Nf6 11.Bc2 b6 12.Qd3 Bb7 13.Bg5 g6 14.Rfe1 Re8 15.h4 Rc8 16.Rac1 Nd5 17.Ne4 f5 18.Nc3 Bxg5 19.Nxg5 Nf4 20.Qe3 Qxd4 21.Nb5 Qxe3 22.fxe3 Nxg2 23.Kxg2 Nd4+ 24.Be4 Bxe4+ 25.Nxe4 Nxb5 26.Nf6+ Kf7 27.Nxe8 Rxe8 28.a4 Nd6 29.Rc7+ Kf6 30.Rec1 h6 31.Rxa7 Ne4 32.Ra6 Rd8 33.Rc2 Rd3 34.Rxb6 Rxe3 35.a5 f4 36.Rf2 Nxf2 37.Kxf2 Re4 38.b4 Re3 39.a6 Ra3 40.Rc6 g5 41.hxg5+ hxg5 42.b5 g4 43.Rc8 Kf5 44.b6 g3+ 45.Ke1 Ra1+ 46.Ke2 g2 47.Rf8+ Ke4 48.Rxf4+ Kxf4 49.b7 g1=Q 50.b8=Q+ Kf5 51.Qf8+ Ke4 52.Qa8+ Kd4 53.Qd8+ Kc4 54.Qd3+ Kc5 55.Qc3+ Kd6 56.Qd2+ Ke5 57.Qb2+ Kf5 0-1

Position after Black’s 35….f4

- Kasparov's book on Fischer (My Great Predecessors) has some great analysis on this game, which will clear up any questions. Awful lot of deep stuff going on.

- Make no mistake, Fischer outplayed Sam in the middle game and the last few moves before the time control were played under time pressure. Sam's exchange sacrifice an interesting attempt to confuse bobby right before time control.

- instead of 42. Rc8, could Rc2 have at least have given white a draw? if not a win? the plan to bolster the pawns from behind, and to shield the king from check.

- This game is incredibly difficult.. I have encountered it before but today I decided to look more deeply into it, first guessing each move, then analyzing my guesses and possible improvements and the actual text moves. Then I compared my analysis to Kasparov’s in OMGP IV to see where I went wrong...All in all many twists and turns with many hidden resources that remain unplayed (as with all chessgames that is)... good game.

- Well, you've got to give Reshevsky this. His best years were behind him, but the old warrior showed up and played hard in 1961, and fought Bobby Fischer to 5.5 - 5.5 in 11 games, and was even declared the match winner by forfeit. The more you think about it, the more of an impressive result on Reshevsky's part this was.

- Kasparov in OMGP 4 mainly quotes from Dvoretsky's analysis. Dvoretsky reveals some serious flaws in Fischer's notes from MSMG, mainly with regard to his apparent conviction that Black has enough counterplay to hold the draw after the loss of the exchange.

- I just got my copy of Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games today. I flipped to a random page and found this game. All I can say for now is that Fischer's annotations are very interesting to read, and he isn't afraid to criticize his own mistakes.

Game Six

This is a short game with little tension and yet of significance in that Reshevsky’s treatment of the Dragon Variation proved to be fully satisfactory for Black. Fischer has to switch his beloved O-O-O for O-O; but with a zero less, his attacking chances still remain zero.

Game 6, July 30, 2020
Los Angeles, CA
Fischer, Robert J. – Reshevsky, Samuel
B35 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto, Uogele variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 O-O 8.Bb3 Ng4 9.Qxg4 Nxd4 10.Qh4 Qa5 11.O-O Bf6 12.Qg4 d6 13.Qd1 Nc6 14.Qd3 b6 15.Qd2 Ba6 16.Rfd1 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Ne5 18.Bd4 Nc6 19.Qh6 Nxd4 20.cxd4 Rac8 21.Re1 e5 22.dxe5 Qxe5 23.Rad1 Bc4 24.Qd2 Bxb3 25.cxb3 Rc6 1/2-1/2

- This uneventful game isn't in MSMG, of course, but Fischer mentions it in his notes to the second game of the match, claiming that he had a "clear advantage" after both 10. Qh4 here and 10. Qd1 in the fourth game.

How he played the advantage into a sterile draw in fifteen moves, he doesn't say. MSMG contains quite a few comments in which RJF claims that he was better out of the opening in games he drew or lost. His total belief in his own opening choices was a great asset, but sometimes it warred with his objectivity.

- If one side has a backward, isolated pawn, why not play on a few moves?

- At least one pair of rooks will come off on the c file (black would double there and own the file if white lets him). Fischer must have figured that black's powerful centralized queen and the fact that white still needs to waste a tempo at some point with something like h3 (avoiding back rank mate ideas) gives Reshevsky full equality.

- That's a good rationalization of why White accepted the draw, but still one imagines that the Fischer of ten years later would have chosen to grind on with his microscopic advantage, at least until the time control. It's particularly odd that RJF took the quick draw given that he'd won the previous game, and so had Reshevsky in a dangerous position in terms of match strategy and psychology, trailing by a point and needing to defend himself with Black after a loss. In the next game, by contrast, Fischer played a bad attacking move in the opening when something simpler would have given him "clear equality" (Mednis), and lost quickly, so that the aborted match ended in an informal tie. Apparently the teenage Bobby lacked the perfect instinct for when to go for the kill that he developed later.

- <If one side has a backward, isolated pawn, why not play on a few moves?>

In a heavy piece ending, that's not as big a disadvantage. There are no minors to probe, and no way for White to advance pawns to create further weaknesses.

- In the 1965 edition of "Profile of a Prodigy", Frank Brady says of White's 12th, "Most interesting at this point is the speculative sacrifice 12.QxB!? which gives White a very strong attack." Aside from the fact that such speculative moves were anathema to Fischer, is this a valid statement or one of Dr. Brady's "wholly unsubstantiated claims" to which Larry Evans referred?

- After this game was played but before Brady wrote those words, a famous game was played in that line: Nezhmetdinov vs O Chernikov, 1962

- the technique I learned years ago for exploiting a backward isolani was for the attacker to trade OFF all the minors, pile up his pieces on the pawn's file, and then win it by advancing his own pawn to exploit the inevitable pin on a defensive heavy piece. could Fischer not have tried Re3/d3-f4-e5 etc.?

- Reshevsky was able to play this accelerated Dragon because Fischer was disinclined to play the Maroczy variation (c4), which gives white an advantage.
I think black, more or less, equalizes in the variations played by Reshevsky.

This game shows that Fischer was usually willing to accept a shattered pawn structure for the 2 bishops. The last game of his match with Spassky is another example.

- Nobody had more of a talent for grinding out small advantages than Fischer. If he took a draw, it's because there's nothing to see here and time to move it along.

Naturally everybody looks at the d pawn, but how do you make progress with white? Advance the kingside pawns? - That comes with risk in a major piece ending where often king safety trumps all other considerations.

I think Fischer did the right thing by taking the draw here.

- then win it by advancing his own pawn to exploit the inevitable pin on a defensive heavy piece. could Fischer not have tried Re3/d3-f4-e5 etc.?>

Ok, let's give this the benefit of every doubt, and assume that somehow you win the d pawn. Being a pawn down is not the end of the world, which anybody who plays the Marshall Gambit can tell you. A problem with this as white is that as soon as you move that f pawn, you leave the 2nd rank vulnerable. It requires no great deal of imagination to see a rook coming to c2 and a queen lined up somewhere against g2 in order for black to generate dangerous threats.

I think Reshevsky would be happy to have the black pieces in such a situation.

After Game Six, the score is:

Reshevsky-Fischer 2.5-3.5

**Wayne Komer** · Wednesday, 22nd April, 2020, 11:08 PM

The Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961

April 23, 2020

After four games in New York City, the match was moved to Los Angeles to be played at the luxurious Beverly Hilton Hotel and the spanking new quarters of the Steiner Club. Eight games were scheduled to be played there and the final four of the match would be contested back in New York City, again at the Empire Hotel.

Game Seven

Attempting vainly to improve on his deployment in Game 3, Fischer incurs even greater trouble. And this time Reshevsky finishes the symphony.

Game 7, August 1, 2020
Los Angeles, CA
Reshevsky, Samuel – Fischer, Robert J.
E51 Nimzo-Indian

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.e3 O-O 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Na5 9.Nd2 c5 10.O-O b6 11.cxd5 exd5 12.f3 Re8 13.Re1 Be6 14.Ra2 Rc8 15.Nf1 cxd4 16.cxd4 h5 17.h3 h4 18.Rf2 Qd7 19.e4 dxe4 20.fxe4 Bb3 21.Qd2 Bc4 22.Bc2 Nb3 23.Bxb3 Bxb3 24.e5 Nd5 25.Qg5 Qe7 26.Qg4 Rc6 27.Bg5 Qxa3 28.Qd7 1-0

- Nice game by Reshevsky.

- Can't black continue with Rcc8?

- After Rcc8, you'll have difficulty stopping mate threats without loss of material following Rxf7. (threatening Rxg7+ Kh8 Rh7+ Kg8 Qg7#)

- At last, Bobby gets punished for pawn-grabbing. Should've happened more often.

- This game shows how much Fischer valued material. He played Qe7 to protect the pawn, and later after he lost the pawn to 27.Bg5, he played ...Qa3?? to get even.

- Kasparov says that with 26....Qe6, conceding a pawn, Fischer could have set up a light square blockade and offered terrific resistance.

- In a way, Fischer deviates here for the worse from a game he played a year earlier: F Thorbergsson vs Fischer, 1960 reached the same position on move 10, only with white's knight on e5 rather than d2; and there Fischer played 10...dxc4 (which would have led to the same here) 11.Nxc4 Nxc4 12.Bxc4 Qc7 13.Qe2 e5 14.Bb2 e4.

- 16...h5?? Is this another case of Bobby forced to make a weakening move because he was fiddling with the h pawn while analyzing the position like what happened in another game of his when he was twirling the h pawn around absentmindedly and forgot about touch move. But since none of the genius kibitzers here mentioned this horrible move maybe I'm just an idiot patzer. Since Fischer went down without a fight after this I'm leaning toward my version.

< Isn't this more aggressive than the usual Reshevsky style? >

The Fischer mystique can sometimes overshadow our overall impressions of his opponents, but make no mistake about it. Reshevsky was also a child prodigy with an impressive performance history. He could be quite aggressive and was a champion in his own right. I think it is dishonest to reality and the facts to not let the games stand as they are. Reshevsky, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov, and a few others were all capable of some amazing though not so perfect wins.

- When I was a kid we once went to a book dump store. I quickly gathered five of the thickest chess books I could lay my hands on, one of them was 'My Seven Chess Prodigies'.

My father did not want to buy into it, but when I said: "Only 25 guilders!", the books were mine. I was in heaven, because I only had two books about chess by then. And they had been pretty expensive. He could not believe the books were that cheap.

At home I was puzzled by this hard cover. It were the 70s, but the book of the 'prodigies' seemed to have traveled straight from the fifties. While the other books had a modern 60s/70s cover.

I knew Fischer, but who the heck were those other guys!?? It kind of annoyed me, because the other books were about chess!

{Note by WK: The book the Dutch reader is referring to is: My Seven Chess Prodigies by John W. Collins (1974). John knew them as boys. They were Bobby Fischer, Robert Byrne, William Lombardy, Donald Byrne, Raymond Weinstein, Salvatore Matera and Lewis Cohen.}

Game Eight

Although the chances favor White in this game, Black nonetheless and cleverly obtains counter-play to reach an almost even ending. He is a pawn down, which means very little, but he has a loose knight, which causes some concern. Too eager to rescue the knight, Black blunders. But White returns the compliment by looking the other way. Thereafter the game is long but dull.

Game Eight, August 3, 2020
Los Angeles, CA
Fischer, Robert J. – Reshevsky, Samuel
B36 Sicilian Accelerated Fianchetto, Gurgenidze variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 8.Be2 Bg7 9.Be3 O-O 10.Qd2 Be6 11.O-O Qa5 12.Rac1 Rfc8 13.b3 a6 14.f4 Bg4 15.Bd3 Bd7 16.h3 Bc6 17.Qf2 Nd7 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 b5 20.Rfe1 Nc5 21.Bb1 bxc4 22.Rxc4 Nd7 23.Bd2 Qb6 24.Rxc8+ Rxc8 25.Qxb6 Nxb6 26.Rxe7 Bc3 27.Bxc3 Nxd5 28.Rd7 Nxc3 29.Bd3 d5 30.Bxa6 Ra8 31.Rd6 Nxa2 32.Bb7 Rb8 33.Bxd5 Nc1 34.f5 gxf5 35.Rf6 Nxb3 36.Rxf5 Kh8 37.Rxf7 Nc5 38.Rc7 Na6 39.Rc4 Rd8 40.Be6 Rd6 41.Bf5 Rf6 42.Bd3 h6 43.Kh2 Kg7 44.Kg3 Nb8 45.Be4 Rf7 46.Bd5 Rd7 47.Bf3 Rf7 48.Bh5 Ra7 49.Rg4+ Kh8 50.Re4 Kg7 51.Re6 Na6 52.Rg6+ Kh7 53.Rd6 Nc5 54.Bg6+ Kg7 55.Bf5 Ra6 56.Rd5 Ne6 57.Re5 Ra3+ 58.Kf2 Nf4 59.Re4 Nd5 60.Rg4+ Kf6 61.Be4 Ne7 62.Rf4+ Kg7 63.Bf3 Ra5 64.Rc4 Re5 65.Kg3 Re6 66.Rc7 Kf6 67.Kg4 Re5 68.h4 Rb5 69.Rc4 Rb6 70.Be4 Kf7 71.Rc7 Kf6 72.Kh5 Rb5+ 73.Kg4 Rb4 74.Kf3 Rb3+ 75.Kf2 Rb4 76.Ke3 Rb3+ 77.Kf4 Ng6+ 78.Kg4 Rb4 79.Rc6+ Kf7 1/2-1/2

Position after White’s 44.Kg3

Then, 44….Nb8?? and 45.Be4?? Fischer overlooks the winning liquidation starting with 45.Rc7+.

- If I remember this correctly, Fischer said that 45. Rc7+ Kg8 46. Rc8+ Rf8 47. Rxf8+ Kxf8 48. Bb5 wins for white. With the knight stalemated white can treat this as a simple king and 2 pawns
vs. King and 1 pawn ending.

- Fischer was right!

- According to Jerry Hanken:
Hanken told me one more story about a crucial game in the match, which was adjourned with Fischer in a winning bishop-versus-knight endgame. It was obvious to everyone who was watching, 25 spectators or so, that the game was over. Reshevsky looked like a beaten man, Hanken said, but then Fischer didn’t play the winning move!

Reshevsky raised his eyebrow and played his move, after which there was no win to be had. Fischer kept looking, but once he had missed his chance, it just wasn't going to happen. Finally, Fischer looked right at Reshevsky, and said, in a voice so soft that you could barely hear it: "You bastard. "

And that's how you offer a draw, if you're Bobby Fischer.

- <"you bastard"> Fischer won at chess but what a loser in everything else.

- Reshevsky was so tough mentally that he probably took it as a compliment.

- I think it's an example of what Kasparov said about the Reshevky match toughening Fischer up. Consider for example Fischer's final game against Spassky in 1972, the one that gave him the world championship. He stayed up all night analyzing his heart out, leaving nothing to chance.
He had learned his lesson.

- "You bastard"...This is a youngster of 18 talking to a living legend of 50...

Score after Game Eight

Reshevsky-Fischer 4-4

**Wayne Komer** · Thursday, 23rd April, 2020, 11:31 PM

The Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961

April 23, 2020

Irving Rivise: On Thursday, August 3, we had the first serious dispute between the players. Game Eight was adjourned and the problem of when to play if off arose once again. Reshevsky against stated that he would not play Friday afternoon (the start of his Sabbath). Fischer stated he would not play on Monday night since he had only done so the previous week before the club quarters were not available. After some discussion I stated the game would have to be played Saturday night at 8:30 p.m. Reshevsky requested a later starting time since he said his Sabbath did not end until 9:00 p.m. I then announced to those present that the game would be continued at 9:30 p.m. Saturday Aug. 5. This was accepted without further comment or discussion.

On Saturday night Aug. 5, the game continued and shortly after play started, Fischer missed a quick win which he saw immediately upon his not making the correct move for he came over to where I was sitting and in an obviously disgusted manner told me about it. I mention this only because I believe this had some bearing on the position he took later in the match.

After two hours of play and 16 moves having been made, Reshevsky came to me while Fischer was deep in thought at the board, and asked me if I were going to have Fischer seal his next move. There appeared to be about 150 spectators watching the game and since I knew of no rules or agreement specifying the length of the playing sessions of adjournments I told Reshevsky that this was to be a four hour playing session. Sammy protested vigorously stating this was advantageous to Fischer. While Fischer continued to ponder but obviously disturbed by the commotion, Sammy and I went outside the playing room to explain his protest to Mrs. Piatigorsky and Mrs. Grumette. Sammy and I returned to the playing room while the two ladies discussed the situation with Jack Moskowitz and Kashdan. During their meeting Sammy told me he would of course abide by any decision they reached which was that the session would continue until four hours and 32 moves had been made. Sammy made no further comment but Fischer made a number of derogatory remarks about Sammy being a coward, unethical, etc. claiming he was trying to adjourn in order to try and salvage a draw by analysis at home instead of playing over the board.

At 1:30 a.m. the game was adjourned for the second time and since the next game was to be played at 1:30 p.m. the same day we did not set a date for playing off the adjourned game. Fischer had rushed out immediately and it was at this time Mrs. Grumette informed me that she had secured the Beverly Hilton for the 11^th game and that I should also announced to the spectators then present that the 12^th game would be played at 11:00 a.m. Sunday, August 13. Fischer of course did not hear this announcement. And I gave it no more thought since the players had been arriving at the proper playing site on time for all the other games.

The game below played on Sunday, August 6 was also adjourned and I then told both players that game 8 would be continued at the club on Monday afternoon for a two hour playing session and that game 9 would resume on Monday evening for a four hour session if needed. This was accepted by both players without discussion. Both of these games were concluded shortly after play started.

Game Nine

A novelty in the opening makes this game theoretically valuable. Fischer restores a line of play which Najdorf once introduced with satisfactory results against Reshevsky. And Fischer improves on Reshevsky’s use of that line. The variation is moody. But Fischer is right, at least in practical effect.

Game 9, August 6, 2020
Los Angeles, CA
Reshevsky, Samuel – Fischer, Robert J.
E97 King’s Indian, Orthodox, Aronin-Taimanov variation

1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 O-O 5.Be2 d6 6.Nf3 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.Be3 Re8 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Nxd8 11.Nb5 Ne6 12.Ng5 Re7 13.Rfd1 c6 14.Nxe6 Bxe6 15.Nc3 Rd7 16.Rxd7 Bxd7 17.Rb1 Ng4 18.Bd2 Be6 19.f3 Nf6 20.Be3 Bf8 21.Rd1 Nd7 22.Na4 f6 23.h4 Be7 24.g3 Kf8 25.Kg2 Ke8 26.Kf2 Bf7 27.Kg2 Rc8 28.f4 exf4 29.gxf4 f5 30.exf5 gxf5 31.b3 Ra8 32.Bd3 Be6 33.Nc3 Kf7 34.Ne2 Nc5 35.Bc2 Ne4 36.Kf3 Rg8 37.Rg1 Rxg1 38.Bxg1 Bxh4 39.Bxa7 h5 40.Nd4 Nd6 41.Bb8 Bf6 42.Ke3 Bxd4+ 43.Kxd4 Ne4 44.Bxe4 fxe4 45.Kxe4 Kg6 46.f5+ Bxf5+ 47.Kd4 Bb1 48.a3 Bc2 49.b4 b5 50.Kc5 Ba4 51.cxb5 cxb5 52.Kd4 1/2-1/2

- The opening approach by Reshevsky is really intelligent, I believe. He sets up a situation where he's either going to win or the game is going to be a draw. Fischer shows his greatness by making draws in games like this anyway.

- Sammy was already perhaps 5-10 years past his prime here... In the early 50s he could reasonably have claimed to be the strongest player in the world, if not the WC.

- Fischer misses the win by one tempo.

- Oh, is that all. One tempo is a lot.

Game Ten

This is a rather quiet affair. Yet it is worth study if only for Black’s clever conduct of the defense, particularly the end-game.

Game 10, August 8, 2020
Los Angeles, CA
Fischer, Robert J. – Reshevsky, Samuel
B36 Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto, Gurgenidze variation

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Nxd4 7.Qxd4 d6 8.Be2 Bg7 9.Be3 O-O 10.Qd1 Bd7 11.O-O Bc6 12.f3 Nd7 13.Qd2 Rc8 14.Rac1 a5 15.Kh1 Nc5 16.b3 Qb6 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Qb4 19.Qxb4 axb4 20.Bd2 Ra8 21.Rc2 Bc3 22.Bxc3 bxc3 23.b4 Na4 24.a3 f5 25.Bb5 fxe4 26.fxe4 Rxf1+ 27.Bxf1 Kg7 28.Bb5 Kf6 29.Bxa4 Rxa4 30.Rxc3 Ke5 31.Rc7 Kf6 32.Rc3 Ke5 33.Kg1 Kxe4 34.Rc7 Kxd5 35.Rxe7 b5 36.Rxh7 Rxa3 37.Rg7 Rb3 38.Rxg6 Rxb4 39.Rg5+ Ke6 40.Kf2 d5 1/2-1/2

Position after White’s 24.a3

- This is a wonderful defensive effort by Reshevsky, completely modern. Kasparov would have been proud to have taken the black pieces here.
.
- Kasparov believes that the Reshevsky match toughened Fischer up, and made him into a true world championship threat.

- Reshevsky had his openings ready for this match. This game is an example, you can tell Reshevsky had deeply analyzed this before the game even started.

__________

Game 10 on Tuesday, August 8 passed without incident.

Scores after Game Ten

Reshevsky-Fischer 5-5

**Wayne Komer** · Friday, 24th April, 2020, 10:47 AM

The Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961

April 24, 2020

Irving Rivise (writing in Chess Life, October 1961):

Prior to the start of game 11 at the Hilton, Fischer came to me and asked how come the last game was schedule for 11:00 a.m. on Sunday and further, that he would not play at that time. I noticed Mrs. Piatigorsky and Mrs. Grumette sitting together in the audience and I went down to tell them of Fischer’s objections. Mr. Piatigorsky then informed me it was her suggestion that the game be played on Sunday morning instead of Saturday night since it was certainly more reasonable to all concerned not to stay up until 2:30 a.m. which would be necessary if a five hour playing session were started at 9:30 p.m. Once again I would like to make it clear that Reshevsky was not consulted about his nor was it done to benefit him as opposed to Fischer. I for one certainly did not know Fischer did not “ever” get up that early and I doubt that any other member of the committee was aware of his late sleeping habits. I subsequently learned from Kashdan that at Leipzig Fischer did get up early in the morning to play off adjourned games.

Fischer rejected the reason for the change, stated he would not play at the early time and the 11^th game began. As you know this game was adjourned in what appeared to be an easy win for Fischer and after waiting about half an hour for Sammy to make his sealed move, he left the hotel. This adjournment was continued the next afternoon and Fischer let his “win” slip into a draw and once again quit the playing room in a rage.

Game Eleven

This game, which unexpectedly became the last one of the match, excels up and into the ending. As for the ending “salty” in the parlance of westerns means, “loud, tough and quarrelsome,” and the ending of this game is fully as salty as the end of the match as a whole.

Fischer goes into the ending with a clean exchange up, and he plays reasonably well, yet the issue is a draw. It is another valuable example of the “mock exchange” sort of end-game previously exemplified in Game 5.

Game 11, August 10, 2020
Los Angeles, CA
Reshevsky, Samuel – Fischer, Robert J.
E99 King’s Indian, Orthodox, Aronin-Taimanov, main line

1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 O-O 5.Be2 d6 6.Nf3 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Nd3 f5 11.exf5 Nxf5 12.f3 Nd4 13.Ne4 b6 14.Bg5 Qe8 15.Bd2 a5 16.Re1 Nxe2+ 17.Qxe2 h6 18.b3 g5 19.a3 Qg6 20.b4 Nf6 21.bxa5 g4 22.Ndf2 gxf3 23.Qxf3 Nh5 24.Qe3 bxa5 25.Rac1 Bf5 26.c5 Nf4 27.Qg3 Bxe4 28.Rxe4 Qxe4 29.Nxe4 Ne2+ 30.Kh1 Nxg3+ 31.hxg3 Ra6 32.cxd6 cxd6 33.a4 Rf7 34.g4 Bf8 35.Kh2 Kh7 36.Rc8 Rb6 37.Ra8 Rb3 38.Bxa5 Rf4 39.Bc7 Rxe4 40.Rxf8 Rd3 41.Rf6 Rxg4 42.Rxd6 Rg7 43.Rc6 Rxd5 44.Rc2 e4 45.a5 Rd3 46.Bf4 Rf7 47.g3 e3 48.Rc1 Re7 49.Re1 Ra3 50.Re2 Kg6 51.Kg2 Rxa5 52.Rxe3 Ra2+ 53.Kf3 Rb7 54.Re6+ Kf5 55.Re5+ Kf6 56.Rd5 Rb3+ 57.Kg4 1/2-1/2

Position after White’s 33.a4

Kmoch writes of this position (in Chess Review):

An absorbing study for an end-game. White has considerable positional compensation for the exchange. His pieces, unlike those of his opponent, exercise fine activity. His bishop is much better than the opposing one. His doubled pawns are of little consequence since they can readily exchange the foremost (the “front twin,” as opposed to the “rear twin). And his pawns on the whole are hard to assail while the enemy pawns, particularly those on a5 and d6, offer point-blank targets.

So White has good chances for a draw, the more so in that Black can hardly start any action without acquiescing to indirect exchange of the queen rook pawns and the queen pawns.

- Why wouldn't Fischer exchange rooks of 52 or 53 and head in B and P v R and P? It'd seem like he'd be able to pull off something.

- Well, that is very complex. I think for like 25 years it was believed that this approach would win the game. But, if I remember right, some analysis showed a miracle draw for white with the bishop, based on stalemate themes.

- This game was part of a match that was arranged between Fischer and Reshevsky. After the 11th game, which is this one, Fischer stopped playing and the result was eventually declared in favour of Reshevsky. At the point both sides had two wins actually.

In an interview with Reshevsky that was conducted a few years before his death, he gives details of the game. According to Sam, when the game was adjourned, Fischer had no doubt of the victory and declared that he would win. Reshevsky 'stayed up a little bit that night' and found the way to draw. The next day Fischer was disappointed.

Reshevsky says that this incident was the reason Fischer quit. This supposedly broke his spirit. When the interviewer raised the objection that Fischer was a great fighter, Sam said: "Well it is something to declare that you will win but it is completely different when you say that you will and then get a draw."

- In his book Fischer claimed he could have won by trading rooks on move 53. That would leave a 6-man endgame which is now covered in the computer tablebase, so I checked it out and it said Black could force mate in 44 more moves.

- "Too often I have heard remarks such as "Fischer doesn't back up his comments with sufficient play", so for all those pundits try out this 48...e2 !! 49. Re1 Re7 50. Kg2 Rd5 51. a6 Ra5 52. Bd6 Re6 53. Bf4 Raa6 54. Bd2 Rad6 55. Bb4 Rd1 56. Kf2 Rf6+! 57.Ke2 Re1+ 58.Be1 Kg6 59. Bc3 Ra6 60. Bd4 Kf5 61. Kf3 Ra3+ 62. Kg2 Kg4 63. Be5 h5 64. Bd6 Ra2+ 65. Kf1 Kh3 66. Bf4 Ra4 67. Be5 Rg4 68. Kf2 Kh2 69. Bf4 Kh1 70. Bd6 Rg5 71. Bf4 Rg7 72. Kf3 Kg1 73. Be3+ Kf1 74. Bf4 Ra7 75. Bd2 Rf7+ 76. Bf4 Rf8 77. Ke3 Kg2 78. Bc7 Re8+ 79. Kd3 Re7 80. Bf4 Kf3 81. Bb8 Rg7 82. Be5 Rg3! and Black wins." Fischer and his notes from 2007, page 333 "My 61 Memorable Games"

- There is some grave doubt in the chess community that these are Fischer's notes....

- <grave doubt> by whom?....in the chess community, as you say?....name a titled player who has read the book, and says it's forged??......we have IM Larry Day who will stand by the book's authenticity....score 1-0....wanna give your negative author's assessment??

- Doesn't matter what IM Day says about the book's "authenticity."

Einar Einarsson said Bobby did not write it.

- Why don't you give us a number to call to buy a copy... other than Ed Trice. Maybe someone will. "The Publisher" has not made gratis copies available to reviewers for assessment. Please step back into the light. Don't play Vader to Trice's evil Emperor.

- This is game 28 in Fischer's <My 60 Memorable Games>.

(to be continued)

**Wayne Komer** · Saturday, 25th April, 2020, 02:20 PM

The Reshevsky-Fischer Match 1961

April 25, 2020

Post-Match Comments

Irving Rivise (continued) – On Saturday evening August 12, I was at the home of Mrs. Grumette together with Mr. Goehler and Jerry Spann who had come to Los Angeles particularly to see the last game. Mrs. Piatigorsky called me and informed me that Fischer had been a guest of hers for the day but that despite all her persuasion he was adamant and we then discussed this once again arriving at a final decision that the playing time was not unreasonable., that the committee had the right to make reasonable change (for example the second time play was held at the Beverly Hilton was to acquiesce to Fischer’s desires without considering whether or not Reshevsky would object) and that the chess public had to be considered at last on two counts: 1) for about one week the newspapers had daily made mention of the 11:00 a.m. time and 2) the 11:00 a.m. time was more convenient for all except perhaps Fischer. With these considerations in mind it was decided by this committee meeting to begin play at 11:00 a.m. the next morning.

I then called Fischer at his hotel and informed him his clock would be started at 11:00 a.m. and that if he failed to appear within one hour he would be forfeited. Jerry Spann was present when I called. Fischer simply stated he would not be there at 11:00.

The next morning arrangements were made for Mrs. Grumette to go to Fischer’s hotel between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m. to provide transportation and persuade him to play. He refused. As another precaution we left one of our club members at Fischer’s hotel with a car in the even Fischer later changed his mind.

AT the club the clock was started at 11:00. Shortly thereafter Jerry Spann called Fischer at his hotel to try and reason with him but unsuccessfully.

One hour and some minutes later I declared the game forfeited in favour of Reshevsky.

_________

The coverage in Chess Review (November 1961):

On August 3 Mrs. Lina Grumette personally notified Bobby of the change of the starting time of the twelfth game in Los Angeles from 1:30 PM on Sunday August to 11:00 AM the same day. Thereupon the new hour was repeatedly announced by the referee, Irving Rivise and mentioned in Isaac Kashdan’s chess column. There is no record of any protest by Bobby from August 3 to August 9. On Thursday, August 10, however, bobby stated that he had just learned or the proposed change and was opposed to it because it would compel him to rise too early for him to play his best. Apparently news of the change failed to register on Bobby’s mind for almost a week. Unfortunately, by the time he made his wishes known, it would have been something of an imposition on both his opponent and the ticket-buying spectators to try to bring about a last-minute arrangement.

The twelfth game was declared forfeited to Sammy when Bobby did not appear at 11:00 AM and permitted the time on his clock to run out. Hereabouts Bobby seems to have relied upon a mistaken notion that forfeits had been banned by the rules of the match. Actually, the rules specified only illness as a valid reason for a player’s non-appearance for a regularly scheduled game, although, no doubt, responsible officials will make every effort to avoid declaring forfeits if they can possibly do so.

The idea of starting the twelfth game at 11:00 AM originated with Mrs. Piatigorsky, a contributor to the prize fund, who requested the change as an accommodation enabling her to attend her husband’s concert. Unquestionably Fischer had the right to disregard Mrs. Piatigorsky’s convenience; equally clearly Mrs. Piatigorsky was under no obligation to feel apologetic for suggesting the change.

Now the affair moved quickly to its unhappy denouement. The thirteenth game was scheduled for New York on August 15 at 5:00 PM. About an hour before game time, Bobby demanded, not merely a review of the Los Angeles decision, but its immediate revocation. Otherwise he would not resume the match. Walter J. Fried, with a difficult problem. He had not yet had time to ascertain the facts and was therefore in no position to say whether the forfeit was justified or not. Hence Bobby would have been better advised to ask merely for a review of the case, and perhaps also, on grounds later stressed by Isaac Kashdan and Saul Rubin, for a postponement of the match until Fried could decide what to do. It is desirable for a player to know his score at all times because (1) the state of the score will dictate his strategy and (2) he cannot be expected “to play his best with the loss or a whole game by forfeiture hanging over his head.” All this is true but postponement might have run into practical considerations such as the commitment to the hotel for engaging playing rooms, publication of playing dates, purchase of tickets by the spectators, etc. One thing is certain: Fried was not interested in ruining the match on a technicality; he would have been open to any reasonable arguments whereas he could hardly submit to pointless intransigence. As a result, he felt he had no choice but to award the match to Reshevsky.

Further Comments

Larry Evans – As a general principle, I see no reason why the schedule of a match between two players cannot be arranged to suit the convenience of BOTH. If the announced timetable was changed to suit Reshevsky, then it was unfair to force Fischer to play at 11 the next morning. (Bobby told me he was ready, willing and able to make it at 1 instead.)

Rather than rehash an unpleasant situation, I would prefer to see the forfeit declared invalid and the match resumed.

Saul Rubin (President of the Marshall Chess Club) (in reply to Mr. Fried) – At least ten players of master rating or better have assured me that they would not have played the 13^th game under the conditions imposed on Fischer. Surely, between Monday when you learned of the forfeiture, and Thursday, when you had scheduled the 13^th game, you could have gotten all the facts from Mr. Rivise, the referee in California, even if it required a couple of costly long-distance telephone calls.

Also, by granting the match to Reshevsky by forfeiture you suggest that any questioning now of the 12^th game forfeiture, or of any other details is now academic. I must concur in this view only insofar as the granting of the trophy and distribution of the prize money are concerned, since your organization controls them. However, many of us will, for a long time, be wanting to know what happened in Los Angeles to justify the forfeiture and why Fischer’s protest could not have been determined before the 13^th game. We shall also be wondering why there was not enough maturity tact and understanding among those who directed this excellent event to see it through to its logical conclusion.

The things I have said here are my own views and do not purport to express an official point of view of the Marshall Chess club, which, indeed, will have no official view in the matter. I have, of course, discussed this matter with many members of my club and with others interested in chess, and have found almost unanimous accord with the views expressed.

__________

Lisa Lane – The injurious publicity that has appeared in the public press should serve as an example to all chess organizers that careful planning, prudent arbitration and consultation with experienced promoters is an absolute necessity when conducting a match of such world-echoing importance.

Eliot Hearst – Mr. Rubin’s letter supporting Fischer was as reasonable, logical, and equitable as the American Chess Foundation’s stand on the matter was irrational, uninformed, and biased. It’s too bad that Bobby did not conduct himself with more maturity in the affair; then he would have been a real chess hero. Now-at the very worst-he can be described as an ungentlemanly chess hero.

__________

After the Match

From Frank Brady’s Profile of a Prodigy:

Eventually, Fischer took the matter into the courts and sued Reshevsky and the American Chess Foundation, lest his “…reputation as the most skillful and proficient player in the United States be irreparably damaged and tarnished.” After a number of years, the case was dropped.

In November of 1965, Jacqueline Piatigorsky had sent an invitation to Fischer asking him to play in the second Piatigorsky Cup tournament and Bobby accepted.

The Piatigorsky Cup was a triennial series of double round-robin grandmaster chess tournaments held in the United States in the 1960s. Sponsored by the Piatigorsky Foundation, only two events were held, in 1963 and 1966. The Piatigorsky Cups were the strongest U.S. chess tournaments since New York 1927.

The First Piatigorsky Cup was held in The Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in July 1963. The tournament field of eight included players from five countries. The Soviet representatives Paul Keres and World Champion Tigran Petrosian finished equal first to share the cup with a score of 8.5/14, receiving more than half of the $10,000 prize fund ($3000 for first). The other participants were Najdorf, Olafsson, Reshevsky, Gligoric, Benko and Panno.

The second and final tournament in the series was held in July and August of 1966 at the Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica. The field was increased from eight players to ten. These were Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Reshevsky, Larsen, Portisch, Unzicker, Najdorf, Ivkov and Donner.

The winner was Spassky with 11.5 points, followed by Fischer with 11 and Larsen with 10.

___________

Jacqueline Piatigorsky was 100 when she died July 15, 2012.

Lina Grumette died at the age of 80 in 1988.

(Los Angeles Times) - Known as Fischer’s “chess mother,” Mrs. Grumette, a widow, kept the enfant terrible of chess at her home for months at a time. She encouraged him to seek the world championship from the Russian, Boris Spassky. Then she journeyed to Iceland with him and was there when Fischer became the first (and only) American to ever win the world title.