Game 3
GAME 3
Fischer began receiving letters and cables urging him to continue the match and presidential adviser Henry Kissinger called him from Washington to appeal to his patriotic interests in playing for the United States.
To ease the situation, Schmid announced that according to the rules, he had the right to move the match from the stage of the hall to a back-stage room, at least temporarily to give Fischer a chance to calm down. To get the third game underway, Schmid then appealed to Spassky as a “sportsman” to agree to play in a room backstage, out of sight of cameras and audience, in an attempt to normalize the situation. Spassky was willing . . . but just for this one game.” Fischer made reservations on all three flights going back to New York on day of the game, but ninety minutes before the start of play he said he would be willing to give it a trial, if he was assured complete privacy and no cameras.
Benoni Deferred
After his first move, suddenly, Fischer began pointing to the camera and shouted:
“What is this?” he demanded, worrying the on-off switch of camera. “Will you please be quiet, Bobby?” said Schmid. “The game has started.”
Fischer whipped around. “Shut up!” he yelled at Schmid, who blanched in disbelief.
“What did you say? I’m sorry,” Schmid replied evenly and then made a comment that indicated he would not “allow” such language to he used.
Spassky was now on his feet. “I am leaving!” he announced curtly but with the bearing of a Russian count, informing the two men that he was going to the stage to play the game there.
Schmid recalled later that “. . . for a second, I didn’t know what do. Then I stopped Spassky’s clock, breaking the rules. But somehow I had to get that incredible situation under control.”
The voices continued, but became somewhat subdued. Schmid put his arms around Spassky’s shoulders, saying: “Boris, you promised you would play this game here. Are you breaking that promise?” turning to Fischer, Schmid said: “Bobby, please be kind.”
Spassky gaped for about ten seconds, thinking about what to and finally sat down. Fischer apologized for his hasty words and both men finally got down to business.
A dubious innovation by Fischer on move 11th was badly handled by Spassky. Actually he found the correct answer but few moves later he neglected the correct continuation. From then Spassky was on the defensive. Spassky gave up his e-pawn in order to survive. An ending of Queens and Bishops of opposite color was reached. Spassky seems to have some chance of draw but made an incredibly blunder on move 41. Analyses showed that after 41. Ke1, despite an extra pawn, it was not very easy for Black to emerge. The same evening Fischer celebrated not only his first victory in this championship but also his first ever victory against Boris Spassky.
Score: Fischer 1 Spassky 2
Game 4
GAME 4
Sicilian Defense
Everything was well known till move 13. Spassky offered a Pawn sacrifice for an attack which leave him with two Bishops and a good play. After brilliant maneuvers he missed a win with 29…Rd8, and Fischer escaped with a draw.
Krogius:
Score: Fischer 1½ Spassky 2½
Game 5
GAME 5
Nimzo—Indian Defense
Terrible opening play by Spassky gave Fischer an early positional advantage. Spassky decided to compensate with an aggressive play which only increase Fischer’s advantage. In a difficult position but not yet desperate, Spassky still had little chances for a draw. But all his hopes were immediately annihilated once when he play 27.Qc2 an outright blunder, which Fischer promptly punished.
Score: Fischer 2½ Spassky 2½
Game 6
GAME 6
Queen’s Gambit Declined.
Fischer surprised everyone with his first move 1. c4 instead of his usual 1.e4. In an easily even position Spassky made an awful positional blunder 17…Ra7, which gave Fischer his chance. Fischer sized the initiative and soon broke Black’s defense by pushing his f-pawn. In a ‘zugzwang’ position, Spassky was waiting the final judgment which came after 37. Qe4
Score: Fischer 3½ Spassky 2½
Game 7
GAME 7
Sicilian Defense; “poisoned Pawn” variation.
During a tense struggle, Spassky sacrificed three Pawns and a Bishop for good attacking chances. Fischer got away with it and could even claim the victory, but confused by a good defense, he let Spassky slip out. After deep study, Fischer demolished the similar variation in game eleven.
Score: Fischer 4 Spassky 3
Game 8
GAME 8
English Opening
The second time of his life Fischer played this opening. Both players repeated the moves of the 4th game but Fischer was the first to innovate with 11. Bf4. On move 15 in an approximately even position Spassky put the Exchange en-prise. Fischer grabbed the Rook and Spassky collapsed after another lost of pawn on move 19.
Score: Fischer 5 Spassky 3
Game 9
GAME 9
Queen’s Gambit Declined.
Fischer produced on move 9 an improvement on one of the Spassky-Petrosian games, which gave him easy equality. Spassky failed to protect is center and suddenly Fischer started to have some pressure. To avoid further complication Spassky decided to simplify. Draw was reach without any difficulty.
Score: Fischer 5½ Spassky 3½
Game 10
GAME 10
Ruy Lopez.
Spassky equalized in a opening which was very well known by both players. Spassky sacrificed a pawn to receive free play for his piece then missed a probable win. After a tactical error on move 25, Fischer didn’t miss the opportunity to rush on the opposite King. After a couple of brilliant moves, the American asphyxiated the Russian and eventually won the game.
Score: Fischer 6½ Spassky 3½
Game 11
GAME 11
Sicilian Defense; “poisoned Pawn” variation.
Innovation by Spassky, an improvement over Game 7, demolished Fischer. On the board the opening line was similar till the move 10. Then Spassky switched and follow a game played by the Soviet player G. Kuzmin in 1967, which ended in a draw. On move 14th after a 30 minutes of reflection, Spassky decided to trap Fischer’s queen. Playing two weak moves in a row, Fischer managed only to reach a complete lost after 20 moves. Brilliant.
Score: Fischer 6½ Spassky 4½
Game 12
GAME 12
Queen’s Gambit Declined.
Neither side wanted to risk much; fairly early equalization and draw.
Score: Fischer 7 Spassky 5
Game 13
GAME 13
Alekhine’s Defense.
Alekhine’s Defense had not been played in a World Championship since 1935. Fischer, very confident on his analyzes wasn’t too scare to put his own preparation on the board. Was Spassky prepared to play against such opening? Not sure, after 14 moves he was already a pawn down without any compensation. However battling with a lot of energy, Spassky managed to go to the adjournment with a very complex position. Of course Fischer was better but he had some difficulty to find the wining plan. Twenty moves later it was still not clear if Fischer could play for a win. After sacrificed his Bishop for a pawn, he was now playing an endgame with Rook and 5 pawns vs. Rook, Bishop and pawn. Spassky spent a huge amount of time to reach a double edge position and in time-trouble he missed the simple 69. Rc3, which could guaranty him the draw.
The greatest game of the match. Brilliant attack and defense by both sides, though with a number of mistakes.
Score: Fischer 8 Spassky 5
Game 14
GAME 14
Queen’s Gambit Declined.
Poor opening play by Fischer and later oversight gave Spassky a dearly won game, which he blundered away. First of seven draws on which Fischer coasted to victory.
Score: Fischer 8½ Spassky 5½
Game 15
GAME 15
Sicilian Defense.
Brilliant innovation by Spassky demolished well-known line played for many years. In middle game Spassky lost his way. Fischer could have won but blundered in his turn, game ending in draw.
Game 16
GAME 16
Ruy Lopez.
Fischer’s favorite Exchange Variation was neatly parried by Spassky’s innovation, winch equalized quickly. No real win ever in sight for either side.
Score: Fischer 9½ Spassky 6½
Game 17
Game 17
Pirc Defense
This defense showed a first time appearance in the world championship history. Spassky offered a pawn in the middle game in order to attack the opposite King. To avoid being outplayed Fischer decided to give it back few moves later but then made an incomprehensive mistake. Spassky an exchange ahead tired very hard to get a winning advantage but didn’t succeed.
Score: Fischer 10 Spassky 7
Game 18
GAME 18
Sicilian Defense
Complex middlegame play in which first Fischer then Spassky missed a win. Fischer had the upper hand all the game. Probably he even missed some winning chance on move 35 with Nc4 which was better than Nb5. Finally Fischer had to repeat the moves to collect another half point.
Score: Fischer 10½ Spassky 7½
Game 19
GAME 19
Alekhine’s Defense
Fischer went back to the Alekhine’s Defense. By blocking the center he faced a terrible a King side attack. Spassky had the better chance till the final issue but Fischer found always the best move and managed to hold his position until the end.
Score: Fischer 11 Spassky 8
Game 20
GAME 20
Sicilian Defense
Choosing a solid variation, on move twelve Fischer decided to simplify the position and emerged in an endgame with a Queen and two minor pieces. No doubt that Fischer was playing for a draw. Could he be blamed for actually as he needs just 1½ point out of 5 games to become world champion? Spassky took all the risks in this game which gave him an active position but without big advantage. Spassky agreed to draw after 54 moves.
The Soviet made some accusations that Fischer might be influencing the World Champion behavior by chemical substances or electronic means. The local police X-rayed the chair, analyzed the surroundings, the air and finally …close the case.
Score: Fischer 11½ Spassky 8½
Game 21
GAME 21
Sicilian Defense
The players developed a Sicilian defense, which turned into a Scottish game after 12 moves. A dubious innovation by Fischer was not well handled by Spassky. In a drawn position, which was useless to him, Spassky blundered and adjourned in a hopeless position.
On September 1st at 2:47 P.M. Fischer appeared on the stage to sign his score sheet and Schmid made an official announcement: “Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Spassky has resigned by telephone at 12:50. This a traditional and legal way of resignation. Mr. Fischer has won ths game, number twenty-one and he is the winner of the match.”
Reykjavik, VII-VIII, 1972.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | Total | |
| Spassky B | 1 | (1) | 0 | = | 0 | 0 | = | 0 | = | 0 | 1 | = | 0 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 0 | 8.5 |
| Fischer R | 0 | (0) | 1 | = | 1 | 1 | = | 1 | = | 1 | 0 | = | 1 | = | = | = | = | = | = | = | 1 | 12.5 |
Emphasizing the political and cultural importance of this win, US President Richard Nixon sent to Fischer a telegram of congratulation:
”Dear Bobby,
Your convincing victory at Reykjavik is eloquent witness to your complete mastery of the world’s most challenging game. The championship you have won is a great personal triumph for you and I am pleased to join countless of your fellow citizens in extending my heartiest congratulations and best wishes.”
Svetozar Gligoric who was in Reykjavik throughout the World Championship, interviewed both Fischer and Spassky for Radio Belgrade immediately after the match. He began with the new Champion.
Gligoric: First of all, I should like to congratulate you most sincerely on your success. You have opened a new chapter in chess history. My first question is : Are you satisfied with the course of the match
Fischer: Yes, I am very satisfied with the outcome.
Gligoric: Are you satisfied with your play
Fischer: Quite satisfied, taking into account the pressures surrounding the match.
Gligoric: It was good to see Spassky putting up such a stern resistance in the second half of the match.
Fischer: He played very well, and throughout six or seven games in a row, was under constant pressure. It was terrible.
Gligoric: That’s true; there was a visible change. But I believe that this is easily explained: as you had played with so much energy in the early games, you were left with less resource, somehow, for awhile.
That 21st game, however, was fascinating I liked the opening very much, it was some thing quite new.
Fischer: Not quite new, no. I chanced upon it while leafing through a book on Anderssen.
Gligoric: I understand that, as World Champion, you are automatically a member of FIDE’s Central Committee.
Fischer: Oh yes, I never thought of that.
Gligoric: Will you be making propositions concerning possible changes in the procedure of the World Championship?
Fischer: I would not like to say anything definite just yet. For the time being, I want to play a few matches. Money is there and I want to make it!
Gligoric: Perhaps you would like to play Spassky again
Fischer: Sure. If the purse is big enough, we will certainly play a return match.
Gligoric: May I mention the subject to Spassky?
Fischer: Yes, do ask him. The Russians made me wait too long — that was unfair. I don’t intend to behave in the same way. This is nothing personal against the Soviet players. . .they merely do what they have to.
Gligoric: Do you intend to accept any offers for public appearances in the U.S.A. There was some talk about It recently.
Fischer: I don’t wish to make a spectacle of myself.
Gligoric: Well, thank you. Do you want to say something to Yugoslav listeners?
Fischer: Yes let them know I hope I can play in the Olympiad, although I don’t know precisely what the situation is as yet.
Next was the new ex-champion…
Gligoric: I’d like to know how you view your play in the match.
Spassky: For the most part, I must say I am dissatisfied with my play. It’s rather difficult for me to explain why just at this moment. I think one’s head is much clearer after some time has elapsed — exactly how much time, I do not yet know.
I can tell you, though, that I felt that I could fight for victory, especially during the second half of the match. Until the 21st game, I was convinced I had real chances of saving the match. But I also felt, all along, that I was lacking in nervous energy and physical strength. Almost all the time during the last eight games, I felt that I had him in my hands like a big fish . . . (laughing) a slippery fish on which I could never get a firm grip, and which I occasionally loosed altogether. Then the psychological torment would start all over again, for I had to set about a recapture. Finally, in the 21st game, I played rather riskily, I saw I could win. Then he slipped out of my hands once more and got an advantage. When the game was adjourned with him in a winning position, I saw I had done all I could and knew it was tire to resign the match. But as long as I kept fighting, I felt I was lacking in physical strength. Well those are my general impressions.
Gligoric: What are your impressions on Fischer’s play?
Spassky: In sheer technique, Fischer is extraordinarily practical, and that is a vital quality in chess struggles, His practical nature is highly developed but I have not observed chess creativity in him. In him, you see playing technique, practicality, pragmatism, energy and a lust for fighting: these are what I admire in him. I know he is an exceptional player, but he has some very serious weaknesses. The main one is that he is still very pure in chess, like a child, that is where his main strength lies now, but in the years to come, It could harm him to a certain degree, especially in complicated struggles. He would then need other qualities — greater refinement, greater experience. There are a handful of players who are above him in deeper understanding of the play, in positional comprehension.
Gligoric: I have just been talking with Fischer and he said he would like to play a return match with you next year.
Spassky: That’s very kind of him. I would gladly play such a match any time. I like him very much as a player, as an opponent. I believe the return match would be much more difficult for him; this would not be at all surprising when one looks back over chess history.
Spassky continued: “Fischer is not invincible. Before the match I was absolutely convinced that I should defeat him. And I still believe that he was afraid of losing this match, just as he was afraid of playing me at Belgrade in 1970 in the U.S.S.R. v World match. My play in the early games of the match revealed that my methods had evolved in the meantime — and hardly for the better, unfortunately. I had cut myself off from match and tournament practice. That’s why I spent so long in deep thought at Reykjavik — merely day dreaming instead of thinking coolly and soberly as I used to.
I don’t believe my match preparation was bad. Maybe a few psychological mistakes were made. But I did change my tactics completely in the second half of the event.”
Spassky claimed that he was not surprised by Fischer’s opening repertoire. “He changed his openings, true but that revealed his fear of being surprised himself. Openings did not play a decisive role for either of us.”
Asked to comment on the Reuter’s report that he thought there were some external influences which affected his psychological condition so that he felt ill-disposed, Spassky explained “Suspicions of such devices made me lose my concentration to a certain degree, so I agreed that some kind of checking should be made.”
With Fischer out of touch, Spassky always very kind with journalists was the only one available for comments. Back to Moscow a week after the match he was interviewed by M. Beilin for 64:
Q: How do you consider a sportive struggle during the championship match?
A: The match has been finished recently. Further and detailed analyzing of played games is lying ahead. That’s why I will confine myself to short comments, as it is not high time for the final conclusions yet. In game 1 both opponents were quite nervous. R. Fischer with his Bishop captured my pawn on h2, intending to break the course of fight. He didn’t do it occasionally. Then he had to fight for a draw, but could not reach it. The game 2 when Fischer had not appeared, I did not win any laurels. I’ve got a point, but I did not feel lucky. If Fischer had come to play the opening in the game probably would be similar to the openings in game 4. Before game 3 I agreed to play in the closed apartment without spectators, etc. I was under the power of illusions that Fisher wanted to upset the match and saving this important event I could count on continuation of fight in the spirit of pure chess traditions. My consent on the groundless demand of moving of the play from the tournament hall to the closed room was a great psychological mistake. Having done this mistake before game 3, however I crossed out the correct line of my behaviour before the match. Besides, I was influenced a lot by the consciousness of that fact, that having received a point for the non-appearance of the partner, I occurred to get into “debt”. At the end of unlucky game 3 I broke the rule usually followed by me strictly- I play the 41st move instead to seal it. If I controlled myself as usual, that move would be written 41.Ke1. In the game 4 after Fischer’s mistake in the opening, I had received a possibility to win. The game was intensive, saturated (rich) and quite interesting. Games 5 and 6 are characterized by manifesting of my feverish impulsiveness. Maybe my nervous tension of before match and the first few games of the tournament was begin to tell. To render Fisher due, I must said he won game 6 brilliantly. I believe it was his best game in the match. In game 7 Fischer lost the possibility to win. Thinking over for nearly an hour in game 8 I was so tired that I made a rough mistake. I had not to strive to entirety of the work so persistently, but just limit my play with a calm, technical play as Fischer did. Having looked through the played games, I came to the conclusion that it was not game of mine. It was necessary to level 2 points advantage of the partner. After a quite draw in game 9 an interesting fight expanded in the next game 10. At last I lost even a draw, having all the foundations (reasons) to fight for the victory. Under the difference in 3 points you feel that it is difficult to fight calmly. But the character of my loss in game 10 did not impress me too much. I thought that I would get used to, that the struggle itself was ahead. Fisher played his best variant of Queen: b2, but defense was not the best, and I managed to win. The turning point was outlined… The second stage of the match began. The draw in game 12 kept 2 points difference, and the 13 was the most important 13 also the most difficult. I went wrong in the opening and had to sacrifice a pawn. I did not use the chances in the best way, and Fischer got the advantage, but he played the stage before the adjournment he played uncertainly, and the game was adjourned in a very sharp position. Following analyze of the game lead to the conclusion that the most probable result would be a draw, but I was thinking to long over the sealing move, went into time-trouble, and I had one more trouble in the adjournment. Fischer was thinking over one move the whole hour. It was one of the most intensive games. Playing in the adjournment of this game I had several chances for a draw, but Fischer found a practical chance and made me to make a mistake. The margin in three points was crucial, the pressure renewed. In game 14 I did a terrible mistake with 27…f6, it was caused by the overstrained course of the preceding game. In the second part I conducted more measured play, solid, as it was necessary to play. Quite curious I believed that I was able to win the match. Fischer was not like himself in games 14-21. May be he thought that a store of points him possibility to play passively, I was looking for the best way, but I did not manage. There was an impression that I was losing chances in each game after game 14. In games 18-20 I had obvious chances to win. Several times it came to the breakdown of the opponent’s front, and it seemed that one more blow and the opponent would be broken, but unfortunately I occurred to be incapable for a decisive attempt. I saw the opponent devastated, but I had not enough nervous energy so necessary for decisive effort. I think that that the best and pure game of the match – 19, Alekhine’s Defense. After game 20 where I lost an opportunity of a quite easy victory, I had abatement. And in game 21 the draw was not convenient to me and I avoid it several times. In the endgame Fischer took the initiative. The last draw did not play any role. Fisher reached convincing sportive results. The quality of his play was higher in the first part of the match and in the second half he tailed off.
Q: How do you appreciate the creative side of the match? And the play of the players?
A: The special features which make Fischer the number one chess player, in Spassky’s opinion, are firstly a very high level of technique. Every single opening move he makes is exceptionally good. He does not strain continually to make the absolutely best move in a given position but never fails to make an extremely good move. A second important feature is his immense energy and work capacity during a game. He fights on to the very end, down to the last piece or pawn, His energy enables him to keep his opponent at full stretch, con stantly confronted with fresh problems, He can sense his opponent’s mood and atate of mind with unerring skill The openings produced more interesting ideas than the world championship matches of 1966 and 1969. The Sicilian, and the Alekhine as a way of varying from the Sicilian, were seen in a new light. Fischer’s broadened opening repertoire did not surprise me. He is more erudite than me in the opening so it paid him to vary the openings. Yet he did not gain significant advantages in the openings.’’
“Having lost the match I feel a little awkward in saying that my opponent has not discovered any new approach to the game or any particular depth but I did not feel that I was facing an unconquerable force.”
S. Gligoric provided his opinion in one of the first book written after the match: “The wheel of fortune made unbelievable turns in seven days. Spassky was magnanimous and apparently confident at the beginning of the match. He felt well prepared (he spent eight months for it), and he was, except for a limited area those lines that Fischer had never played before. The challenger grasped the situation excellently and avoided everything that his opponent could expect, going from one surprise to another. As Black, Fischer didn’t play the King’s Indian or Gruenfeld Defence, and as White, even refrained for a while from the king’s pawn, his favourite move all his life. Spassky was taken aback by the all-round knowledge of the American grandmaster, after only six games was a point behind, and after ten games was on the brink of a catastrophe.
Only then the title-holder realized that the direction of his preparations was the wrong one. He had tried stubbornly to outplay the challenger in systems where Fischer had more knowledge and experience. In the second half, Spassky turned back to his best weapons from other competitions, being then ready to take his share of risks in Fischer’s double-edged lines.
It was now the duel of rivals on about the same highest level, but nothing could change the established large difference in points. After the longest ever known series of seven draws, the match was ended by Spassky’s loss of the 2 game.
Apart from the chess aspect, there was a strange psychological situation from which arose a large controversy in public opinion. Fischer’s spokes man, Fred Kramer, explained in one of his many letters to the referee, Schmid, the frequency of American demands by saying that it is known ‘how dear to the challenger’s heart is the perfection of conditions for grandmaster chess.’ It is also true, as a Time magazine reader stated, that ‘Fischer alone has probably brought more prize money and better playing conditions to tournament chess than all the greats combined’, and another reader said that ‘for the first time in chess history there has come forward someone who has elevated chess to the category of a contest in which the rewards should be proportionate to the ability of the contestants.’
At the same time, Fischer’s tireless insistence both on big issues and petty details, created an atmosphere of confusion and tension which could easily have influenced the calm necessary to his opponent. It seems that Spassky tried to retaliate with a few protests of a similar kind when the match was dose to its end. But, the puzzle remains whether Fischer’s attitude was a ‘mean device to destroy the fighting spirit of the champion’, as stated by Spassky’s second Geller, or just the defence of Fischer’s principles and the continuation of his lifelong struggle for ‘perfect conditions’.
There were exciting moments at the very end of the match, too, but Spassky, stunned by Fischer’s rapid reactions in very complicated positions (can we ascribe this speed as a superhuman quality of the new ruler in chess?), here and there missed his best opportunity, as did Fischer himself.
In general, Fischer gave an impression of being more at ease in finding the right moves, while Spassky spent more time on the same purpose. When Fischer was asked why he almost never allowed himself to get into time pressure, he replied: ‘It is not chess any more.’
The eleventh world champion advocates the highest professional approach to the game and sets new standards for grandmasters, therefore enjoying the respect of the chess world.”
R. Fine detailed character and play of the players in his book: “Undoubtedly the circumstances surrounding the match made both players nervous, and their play showed the strain. Chess- wise the games are of rather poor calibre. Fischer was lost in eight games, from which he managed to escape with draws, in one case a win (games four, ten, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen). A few of these wins, as in games ten and thirteen, are quite difficult to find over the board, but the rest are fairly easy. Except for game thirteen, which see sawed back and forth until Fischer finally won after he had given his opponent a chance to draw, no games of really notable stature were recorded.
Nonetheless Fischer, in spite of his strange behaviour off the board, is a consummate pragmatist on the board. The idea of the game is to win, and he won. When draws were good enough, he drew; when wins were absolutely required he produced them. No doubt Spassky could do better, but there is equally no doubt that Fischer is the better over-the-board player.”
GM Fridrik Olafsson, the Icelandic Grandmaster and commentator during the match, answered few questions on the organization and Fischer (the interview was made …30 years later):
Q: How the match Spassky-Fischer match was held in Reykjavik in 1972?
A: The match was played between reigning world champion Spassky and legendary Bobby Fischer. It`s true that he was a legend before the match already. It comes far beyond than chess. It received attention all over the world as other things were involved. The cold war was still going on and the players represented the two superpowers. There were ingredients to make it fascinating for people. I would say for humanity. It was to show which superpower was dominating in this respect. So it’s right to say that the world came here or was looking at what’s going on. It is difficult to explain or to describe all events that took place. It’s beyond normal life of people here in Iceland. There was a wave of enthusiasm and interest in chess. It meant a lot for chess and you have to go back 30 years to know what was the impact of the whole event. After the win of Bobby Fischer chess gained a lot of popularity. A man from the country with few chess player could defeat an “empire”.
Q: How many correspondents were present in Reykjavik?
A: They were not present all at one time but you could easily say that in hundreds. Besides there was also the local media TV, radio and the newspapers. There was an invasion of newspapers and many journalist did not know much about chess but were impressed by the battle of two giants. The Icelandic journalist were polite while talking to the team members of Fischer and Spassky, but the foreigners pushed people aside and rushed forward. It was the first time local journalists understood what the media was all about.: If the organizers could foresee what would happen they would have thought twice before taking the match and carrying it through. Happily enough we did not know and it took a lot to have the match here and to get Bobby Fischer to Iceland which is a special chapter itself and could be described at length but his reasons are well known. He came to Iceland and played and became the most famous winner in world championship match ever. I think that has never been surpassed. In my mind despite of the mistakes made in the match specially by Spassky who was under enormous pressure. The player were in the different situations. Spassky was under pressure of his own regime and authorities but he wanted to play and he was sure, quite confident that he’ll win. On the other side was Bobby by himself with the great will power and carisma. He’s team was different. They were not putting pressure on him they were just doing what they were told. Spassky had a team telling him what to do. I remember once when Bobby did not show up before the second game he was not behaving very nicely. He insulted the hosts, the organizers and his opponent. So it was understandable that he was told not behaving decently having insulted the organizers, Spassky personally and his country. Spassky could have said the match is over, I can go home now but Spassky did not want to do that. He would think that if the match ended this way everybody would say well we know who is the strongest. This is something that happened to Karpov who did not play Fischer because of his demands and special rules. In this part Boris was right but I think this affected him psychologically during the match. I asked Boris how this will affect you? It must be playing on your nerves. You should be able to sit in your room and have quiet time. You are fighting all the time to save the match. He answered me that he was not a child.
Q: What about the duration of the match.
A: The second game was crucial. Everybody thought it was the end of it as it was not played. In the end Bobby agreed to play in the room which was separated from the spectators. Only two players and the referee. You could see the players only through the camera. Later Spassky said that he agreed to play in this room because it was the only way to save the match.
Q: The second game?
A: Bobby did not play the second game because he complained about the cameras which were disturbing him, It was difficult question because Mr. Fox was in charge the countryman of Fischer and had the rights to film the match. According to the complaint Bobby could easily see the cameras, they were moving around. Later it was changed in the way that you could not see the cameras. Only small holes were seen not the people behind cameras. But still Bobby was not satisfied with this. When asked why is this? He answered that he still knew there were people behind these holes. Probably there were some disagreements between Fox and Fischer but we did not know about it.
Q: The broadcasts were later sold to other companies?
A: We later had other companies in the sixth or seventh round. I remember when I went to see Bobby before the second game. We had played frequently in the same tournaments. People thought I could talk him into playing somehow. But he seemed to think that the organizers were on the soviet side. I told him this was not true. He was trying to make his point. At that time we had government who was a bit left side. One of the agendas of the government was to get side of the NATO base. It was possible that Bobby knew about it. I knew it was connected in some ways. Later he talked about pro Soviet government and I could not prove otherwise. He was very upset about everything.
Q: Where did the teams stayed in Reykjavik?
A: They were in different hotels. Bobby had also access to a private house. Before Bobby entered the scene there was not much attention paid on chess. Part of the problem was that it was monopolized by the Soviet Union. There were no big companies which wanted to support chess and I am quite sure that the Soviets did not want to be a money matter. If you think only money and try to sell chess it is lowering the game. The Soviets tried keep chess to themselves not to get it loose in the hands of market forces. When Fischer came on scene and won a match after match the things changed. And the sponsors thought that it’s good to spend money on him. As soon as Bobby was declared a winner all the companies were after him.
Q: What about the image of Bobby?
A: I am telling you that I think people may be were mislead by behavior or appearance of Bobby in so much personal life he did not seem to care very much life in general you know and if you discuss with him matters of international contour unless it was something that he had very special interest. But I remember that one of the main problems when we were trying to get him to play in Iceland and one of his objections was that it would be very difficult to have live representation of the match because of that time Iceland was rather isolated. We did not have this kind of equipment to make live show simultaneously. I think if you consider this objection he had something in his mind and he wanted to spread this match all over the world. So I say that his objection had some bases. He wanted to know all the world what was going on.
GM Bent Larson from Denmark who was also one commentator at the match: “I should say that I am the most likely to face Fischer for the world championship in 3 years’ time. I think I am better than Fischer and can beat him…if you ask why I lost to him 0-6 I will answer that after I lost 4 games, I did not bother to keep the draw In hand.”
People hard to get on with seems to come off best in this world to-day. FIDE had treated decent young men disgracefully but Fischer gets away with murder. There is no question that Spassky has been put off by Fischer’s behaviour and that it has affected his play.
Suppose both feel nervous . . . Spassky represses his feelings but Fischer shouts to the Icelanders ‘Tell your Federation to get a new chairman’ and then feels all right’
Even in the States, his behaviour has been severely criticised. When they announced that the second game had been awarded against him, the spectators applauded
“I ll say this in Fischer’s favour . . . people have made more fuss about his demands, often, than was warranted . . . This story that he has a hypnotic effect on his opponents? Bull! Thanks to him, chess is now an important game in the U.S.A. even the Wall Street Journal gives half a column to chess !!
H. Golombek concluded: “There was no doubt that the better player won. Spassky was out of form for some time, but, even had he been at his peak of his form I think Fischer would have won. There is talk of a possible return match and, through this is obviously a most desirable event, I do not see that there can be any result other than a victory for Fischer again.
Another matter about which there can be no doubt too is the question of preparedness. Fischer preparations for the match were much better than Spassky’s and, I am inclined to think, better than those of any player I have seen in some seven World Champ contest. Time and again he caught Spassky in some unexpected line whereas I can think of only one instance where Spassky surprise him- the second occasion of the employment of the Poisoned Pawn variation, in the 11th game.
Fischer’s exaggerated remark about his defending the title when he will be sixty has some elements of truth in it, inasmuch as I do not see a player, at present, or on the horizon of the future, who can really worry him.
So we are in for a long reign of Fischer as World Champion. How he will behave is champion is anybody’s guess – he is unpredictable. But, as a player he should set the aspiring young master a fine example in his vigour of approach to the game.”
Apparently according Brad Darrash in his book, Fischer made end of 1971 some forecast once he will become world champion. Bobby was right he became world champion but for the rest…
“Once I will be world champion, I’ll play a lot, stake matches. Not like the Russians. They win the championship and then hide for three years. Every few months, anyway twice a year, I’d like to get up a purse and meet a challenger. It’s good for the game, keeps up interest in chess, and it’s good for the bank account. I want to get some money together. Like take professional football. All these athletes making hundreds of thousands of dollars. Contracts, endorsements. If there’s room for all of them, there ought to be room for one of me. I mean, after all, I’m a great goodwill ambassador for the United States! Besides, I want money so I can tell some people I don’t like to go … yeah.”
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | Total | |
| Fischer, R | 0 | 0 | 1 | ½ | 1 | 1 | ½ | 1 | ½ | 1 | 0 | ½ | 1 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 1 | 12.5 |
| Spassky, B | 1 | 1 | 0 | ½ | 0 | 0 | ½ | 0 | ½ | 0 | 1 | ½ | 0 | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | ½ | 0 | 8.5 |