13

Yes. The game itself was majestic, by far the best to date. Harry Golombek described it as "a masterpiece through and through." Fischer was able to create and then remorselessly exploit vulnerable spots in Spassky's barricade, prizing his defenses apart before battering him with the rooks and queen, and without once leaving his own position at ...


8

Svetozar Gligoric, who was there, wrote in his book on the match: With thousands of spectators applauding Fischer's classical style win in the sixth game, Spassky did the same, while offering his hand to the challenger. In order not to be touched by his opponent's gracious behaviour, 'I had to go away' said Fischer to friends afterwards.


6

Fischer kept changing the openings quite a bit: Game 3 (black) he played a Benoni (slight surprise). Game 6 (white) he played c4 for the third time in a serious game (transposed to -QGD). Game 8 (white) he played c4 again and it was a proper English Game 9 (black) Queens Gambit Declined - Semi Tarrasch (slight surprise) Game 10 (white) he played c4 again (...


5

I'd actually argue that the drawbacks of g3 are worse than Black getting a knight on f4. White permanently weakens the kingside light squares and blocks in his dark-squared bishop. Meanwhile, Black getting a knight on f4 is a bit unpleasant, but it's not necessarily a permanent problem. Spassky probably thought that after 26...Nf4 27.Qc2, he was holding. ...


4

After beating Spassky in 1972, Fischer laid out terms that were deemed unreasonable for his title defense in the next world championship against Karpov. With no resolution, Fischer's title was forfeited and Karpov became the new WC by default. Fischer subsequently fades into obscurity. Nevertheless, Fischer never accepted his title loss, and still ...


1

Yes. Fischer was in dire straits for money. And he was a little less an arrogant kiddie brat at that age.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible