Rough estimates over Fischer's re-entry into chess.

[MJMcCready]

Apologies but I keep reading this and that about who actually played Fischer upon his return to chess. I've been told that Anand played him many times and showed him a great deal in the development of computer chess. I've also heard he definitely played Short and Leko. Is any of this true and has anything ever been published about this.

If truth be told, I've never wanted to look at the 2nd Fischer-Spassky match because it takes the magic away from him you could say. I did have a look at about 6 games last month and sadly they only confirmed what I suspected would be the case. Hardly surprising given the amount of time out he took. So to return to my point, who did meet and play Fischer upon his return to chess?

[Nick Burrows]

He played lots with the Polgars

[Matt Mackenzie]

Fischer's top games in that match recalled him at his best, but there weren't that many of them overall. And a few that were downright dreadful.

[Nick Ivell]

There was a moment in the second match when I realised all was up.

It had started so well. Bobby was in scintillating form in the first game, albeit against poor defence.

Then, quite early in the match, Bobby found himself in a typical Spanish middlegame. And he didn't know what to do!

A planless Bobby was unthinkable. It was a sinister, though not surprising sign that he was a shadow of his former self. As such, the 1992 match is not to be taken seriously.

[JustinHorton]

A planless Bobby was unthinkable.

This isn't right, though, is it? I seem to recall that Soviet thinking was very much along the lines that he could struggle where he didn't see a clear plan.

[Nick Ivell]

I think Soviet thinking was that Bobby struggled in messy positions where he absolutely had to find the right move. I'm thinking of the Qf4!! he missed against Geller.

The Spanish middlegame (sorry I can't be more precise, all of this is from memory) was just a normal position. Bobby just collapsed in a way he never used to.

[Nick Ivell]

Now I can be more precise.

Game 5. Fischer on the White side of a Breyer. He plays 21. Rc1 and then 22. Rb1. I haven't analysed this with a computer or anything, but those moves have an aimless quality which was hardly ever present when he was in his pomp.

[John McKenna]

Nick, the move 22.Rb1 has been dubbed "dubious" by GM Ftacnik who also labelled 23.Ne2?! And, 24.a3? Finally 27.Nf4?! All of which gave Fischer a losing game He only gives (Spassky) 30... Nd5! And, 32... Nb4!

A "rough estimate" (see title of thread) of how the faded Fischer of 1992 compared to his brilliant Bobby 1972 self can perhaps, be glimpsed, by the overall performance in the 1992 return match.

Spassky had continued to play regularly in the period 1972-1992 but his rating had fallen to about 2560.

If in 1992 Spassky had been playing the Fischer of 1972 - rated about 2785 (edit - corrected) - the expected score in the 30-game match would have been about 23-7 to Fischer.

As it was the actual score turned out to be 17.5-12.5, which indicates that Fischer was playing at about 2620 - a shadow of his 1972 self but still a very respectable standard given the long lay off.

Regarding who else Fischer definitely did play sfter his self-enforced retirement in 1972 - in 1977 he played 3 games against Greenblatt.

[Roger de Coverly]

Regarding who else Fischer definitely did play sfter his self-enforced retirement in 1972 - in 1977 he played 3 games against Greenblatt.

I think that would have been a program, Greenblatt being one of the early pioneers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_G ... rogrammer)

He wrote Mac Hack, the first computer program to play tournament-level chess and the first to compete in a human chess tournament. AI skeptic Hubert Dreyfus, who famously made the claim that computers would not be able to play high-quality chess, was beaten by the program, marking the start of "respectable" computer chess performances. In 1977, unbeaten chess champion Bobby Fischer played three games in Cambridge, Massachusetts against Greenblatt's computer program, and Fischer won all of them.

[Matt Mackenzie]

A conspiracy theory is that after taking an early lead, Spassky deliberately played below strength for a while out of concern that Fischer would walk out of the match if he went too far ahead. Certainly the 6th game (when Boris missed numerous wins to go 2 up) has been commented on.

[John McKenna]

It was always going to be something of an exhibition match but you'd hope flashes of the genius of the original match might remain in there somewhere.

[Nick Ivell]

John, I offer you game 1. A masterly demonstration of 'a' file domination, worthy of Karpov. Not bad after 20 years off.

[Leonard Barden]

Kasparov apparently thought that game 1 was thrown by Spassky for the same reason as game 6:

This fine game, I know, made a great impression on the chess world, but not on me. Yes, Fischer played well, but Black's play was too helpless: 'gifts' such as 19...Nh7?, 30...f5? and 33...Kf6 are no longer made by the leading grandmasters of today." (OMGP IV at 488.)

I recall the same thought occurred to me when I first saw the game in 1992. On the balance of probabilities (you don't want to risk losing $3m) I still think so.

[Nick Ivell]

An interesting reading of Kasparov's comment.

Would Boris have thrown a game so early in the match? I've always taken Kasparov to have meant something different: that Boris just wasn't very good in 1992!

[John McKenna]

Thanks, Nick and Leonard.

The only thing I recall from 1992 about the match was - too many Closed Sicilians for my liking.

I'll look again.