After three successive draws and two additional days off due to Boris Spassky’s nagging cold, Bobby Fischer won game 25 of their $5 million dollar match in Yugoslavia.  The game was a Scheveningen Sicilian with Spassky playing the black pieces.  Fischer’s 6.Be3 hinted of a delayed Keres Attack, designed to put pressure on the black king via the g-file.  He followed this up with 8.f3 9.O-O-O 10.g4, laying the foundation for his kingside attack.

Due to Fischer castling on the queenside, Spassky was attempting his own kingside attack on the b-file with 11…b5 and 13…b4.  Fischer responded brilliantly with 14.Na4 Bb7? 15.Nb6! Rb8 (15…Nxb6 16.Qxb4 d5 17.Qxb6 Qxb6 18.Bxb6 dxe4 19.Rb7! would be winning for white) 16.Nxd7 Qxd7 17.Kb1.  Fischer was finally able to make his move with 22.g6! and opened the lines for his kingside assault.

The game continued 22…Bf6 23.gxh7+ Kh8 24.Bg5 Qe7 25.Rg3 Bxg5 26.Rg5.  Spassky was now in a completely defensive position and finally resigned after Fischer’s 35th move.  Fischer now leads the match by the score of 9-4 and only needs one more victory to claim the $3.35 million dollar winner’s purse.

The great London tournament of 1862 was one of the strongest tournaments of the 19th century and only the second event recognized as a true international chess tournament.  Several legendary players participated and many great games and novelties were conceived.  Today we bring you one of these games between a young Wilhelm Steinitz and George Alcock MacDonnell.

Steinitz would become the unofficial champion of the chess world from 1866 until 1886, when he would then be recognized as the first official world chess champion.  His long title reign would eventually end in 1894 at the hands of Emanuel Lasker.  MacDonnell was a relatively unknown Irish chess player whose best results were third place finishes at Dundee 1867 and London 1872.

We have also included the game analysis and notes as presented by Johann Jakob Lowenthal in the 1864 tournament book.

Bobby Fischer scored his second consecutive victory in a hard fought Game 21 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.  Spassky employed a Sicilian Defense with the black pieces and Fischer answered with the main line variation (3.d4) for the first time in the match.

Fischer also came up with a novelty by playing 8.g3 and 9.Bg2, exerting pressure on the d5 square.  After the first 20 moves, white enjoyed a slight space advantage until Spassky made a play for the center with 23…b5! 24.cxb5 axb5.  Fischer would later respond with 28.Bxe4 dxe4 29.Be5! and close down the c-file.  He would then start an assault on the black king with 36.f5!, to which Spassky was unable to capture for fear of 37.e6! fxe6 38.Qxe6 Kh8 39.Nf7 Kh7 40.Qf5.

Spassky would end up losing his second pawn with 39.Nxb5 Bxb5 40.Qxb5.  Fischer would eventually give both pawns back to advance his passed pawn on the a-file and ultimately maneuvered his king into a controlling position with 67.Ke4.  Spassky immediately resigned after this move.  Fischer leads the match by the score of 8-4.

Who Is The Greatest Player To Never Win The World Chess Championship?

The poll is officially closed and Paul Keres was convincingly voted the best player to never win the world chess championship.  Readers commented on a few others that were not listed in the poll such as Joseph Henry Blackburne, Aron Nimzowitsch, and Geza Maroczy.  Inquiries about American players Frank Marshall and Harry Nelson Pillsbury were also made.

I commented about my reasons for leaving Blackburne, Marshall, and Pillsbury off of the list in the thread for this posting.  Maroczy and Nimzowitsch were never in serious consideration for title shots as far as I can recall, but please correct me if I am mistaken.  The final poll results out of a total of 100 votes were as follows:

Paul Keres – 31 votes,   Victor Korchnoi - 18 votes

Akiba Rubinstein – 10 votes,   Samuel Reshevsky – 9 votes

David Bronstein – 7 votes,   Carl Schlechter – 7 votes

Other – 6 votes,   Siegbert Tarrasch – 4 votes

Mikhail Chigorin – 3 votes,   Bent Larsen – 3 votes

There will be a new poll posted on Friday of this week. Feel free to continue the conversation, as there should be much more debate on this particular subject.

Boris Spassky won game 20 of his match against a seemingly passive Bobby Fischer.  After letting Spassky off the hook in their previous game and settling for a draw, it was widely expected that Fischer would come out very aggressive in this game.  This thought was immediately amplified when Spassky played 1.e4 for the first time in the match, enabling Fischer to deploy his vaunted Sicilian Defense.

Spassky optioned for the Closed System with 2.Ne2 Nf6 3.Nbc3.  Fischer responded with a solid defense, but one that did not seem poised for a sufficient counterattack.  Spassky’s advance of his g-pawn on moves 14 and 19 indicated right away that he was pressing for a kingside attack.  Fischer eventually sacrificed a pawn on move 23 in an attempt to break up Spassky’s solid center.  Spassky would eventually fortify his position with 28.Nd3.

After 31.Be3! Qh4 Spassky had both of Fischer’s rooks in a forked position and now had a winning rook for bishop ending.  Bobby would resign after white’s 41st move.  Fischer now leads the match by the score of 7 – 4.

Austrian author Thomas Glavinic produced a book in 1999 entitled “Carl Haffner’s Love Of The Draw”.  The book is predominantly a fictional account of the 1910 match for the world chess championship between Emanuel Lasker and Carl Schlechter.  The main character in theory is Schlechter, but his name has been changed to Carl Haffner for the purposes of the book.  All other players (Lasker, Albin, Janowski, etc.) and accounts of the match seem to be mostly factual.

The story begins with the preparations for the world title match to begin in Vienna and to conclude in Berlin.  Viennese writer and chess columnist George Hummel is one of the main characters and a devout fan of Haffner.  His belief that Haffner’s defensive genius at the chessboard will hold Lasker without a win is reiterated throughout the book.

Between most of the match games, Glavinic goes back in time to describe the childhood and upbringing of our main character.  He also proceeds to give a background on his chess career, from moments as a child prodigy in the coffee houses of Vienna to winning equal first with Harry Nelson Pillsbury at the 1900 Munich tournament.  Details which explain the events leading up to Haffner’s tile shot against Lasker are also given at various points of the novel.

The author paints a picture of Haffner as a kind, shy, unassuming man with a chess style built for defense and consequently, for draws.  Throughout the book you notice that Haffner’s health steadily deteriorates, both during the match and afterwards.  Some explanation of this is aimed at the stress of the match itself, as well as the fear that he might actually be victorious and have to deal with the rigors of being world champion.  It is almost implied throughout the story that he actually has no interest in winning the match.

One of the more often used minor characters is Anna Feiertanz, who was drawn to the match and to Haffner from a newspaper article that she had read leading up to the match.  Her interaction and flirtation with Haffner keep you slightly entertained.  Anna is a woman who performs several odd jobs to make money and eventually accompanies Haffner to Berlin to act as correspondent for the absent Hummel.

I am very curious as to how much of the background stories are facts and which are fiction.  The portrayed atmosphere of both the cafes and the actual playing sites are very intriguing.  Not knowing much about Schlechter previous to reading this book, I had no idea that his life and final days painted such a sad picture.  It immediately brought to mind the sorrowful tales of both Paul Morphy and Wilhelm Steinitz.

I will say that the childhood stories seemed to drag on a little too much and at times, caused me to temporarily lose interest in the book.  I also felt that the actual chess games could have been discussed in greater detail.  Glavinic brilliantly accomplished this with the tenth and final game of the match.  He made several references to particular moves and actually made me want to pull the game up and follow along.

Other than the couple of minor negatives mentioned, I felt that the book was a good purchase and I’m sure that I’ll pick back up and read it again one day.  It definitely fueled my interest in Carl Schlechter and I’m confident that you will be seeing some of his historic games on this blog in the very near future.

– Kevin Marchese

To find new and used copies of this book for purchase, click HERE.

October 10, 1992

Belgrade, Yugoslavia

Bobby Fischer won his second consecutive game of match, prevailing against Boris Spassky’s Siciilian Defense in game 17 of their rematch for the world chess championship.  Fischer had previously played the Rossolimo Variation in games 11 and 13, but steered this particular game into a Closed Variation of the Sicilian.

Some key points in the game were Fischer’s 17.g4 (forcing Spassky to give up the bishop-pair) and 20.Qf3 (halting a planned bishop exhange by Spassky that would have taken away the white king’s best defender).

After losing a pawn to Spassky’s 24…Bxa2, Fischer re-claimed it with 25.Bd2! Bd5 26.Bxd5 Nxd5 27.Rxc5 Nb6.  This set the stage for a stronger white endgame, as Spassky’s weakened pawns at a7 and d4 would prove difficult to defend.  Spassky fought on as long as he possibly could and finally resigned after Fischer’s 58th move.  Fischer now leads the match by a score of 7-3.

Here is a classic game between Adolf Anderssen and Jean Dufresne from 1852 in Berlin, Germany.  Anderssen was the 10th unofficial chess champion of the world and was just coming off his victory at the first international tournament in London 1851.  Dufresne was a pupil under Anderssen and was best known for his participation in this famous game, which has been historically referred to as the “Evergreen Game”.

The name was a result of a Wilhelm Steinitz quote that this particular game was an “evergreen in Anderssen’s laurel wreath”.  Steinitz’s notes on this game are also included below.