From: jhc@ivan.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Spassky-Fischer #8, by Zarkov & me.
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:23:54 GMT

Here is Zarkov's analysis of Spassky-Fischer, #8, the Saemisch KID that
Spassky lost due to a blunder on move 31 (or 33).  I have included a
few questions/comments (not to be interpreted at criticisms of their
play).  I have a looong comment on Spassky's blunder and the best
response to 32...Nxb3.  I hope people read it.  I (+Zarkov) disagree
with Byrne/DTII on Spassky's chances after 33.Qc3.

--Jim [1271 USCF]

Move               Score Ply   Suggested Line

  1. d4               28   0   BOOK
  1.       Nf6        -6   0   BOOK
  2. c4                0   0   BOOK
  2.       g6         -3   0   BOOK
  3. Nc3              12   0   BOOK
  3.       Bg7         5   0   BOOK
  4. e4               13   0   BOOK
  4.       d6         27   0   BOOK
  5. f3               17   0   BOOK
  5.       O-O         2   0   BOOK
  6. Be3               1   0   BOOK
  6.       Nc6         9   0   BOOK
  7. Nge2              2   0   BOOK
  7.       a6          0   0   BOOK
  8. Qd2               5   0   BOOK
  8.       Rb8        -1   0   BOOK
  9. h4               -7   0   BOOK
  9.       h5          6   0   BOOK
 10. Bh6               5   0   BOOK
 10.       e5          2   8   b7b5  c4b5  a6b5  d4d5  c6e5  e2d4  g7h6  d2h6 

Eric Schiller points out that 10...e5 is not a TN, but what is the motivation
for 10...e5?  Fischer has wound up for a Q-side attack, so why deviate to
attack the center?  Is it because Spassky has delayed O-O-O?  It doesn't
seem to be anything tactical, because Zarkov favors e5 for the first 7 ply.

 11. Bxg7             17   8   d4d5  c6a7  g2g3  b7b5  h6g7  g8g7  c4b5  a7b5 
 11.       Kxg7       28   8   g8g7  d4d5  c6a7  g2g3  c8d7  f1g2  d8e7  e1g1 
 12. d5               17   8   e1c1  c8d7  d4d5  c6e7  e2g3  b7b5  f1d3  b5c4 
                               d3c4 
 12.       Ne7        10   8   c6e7  e2g3  f6h7  f1d3  f7f5  e1c1  f5f4  g3e2 
 13. Ng3              18   8   e2g3  c7c6  f1d3  c6d5  c4d5  c8d7  a1c1  b7b5 
 13.       c6          1   8   c7c6  f1d3  c8d7  e1c1  c6d5  c4d5  b8c8 
 14. dxc6             43   7   d5c6  e7c6  e1c1  f6e8  f1d3  c8e6  c3d5 
 14.       Nxc6       21   8   e7c6  e1c1  f6e8  c3d5  c8e6  f1d3  e6d5  c4d5 
 15. O-O-O            37   7   e1c1  f6e8  f3f4  c6d4  c3d5  c8g4  f1e2 
 15.       Be6        50   7   d8a5  d2d6  f8d8  d6a3  d8d1  c3d1  a5e1  g3e2 
 16. Kb1              61   7   d2d6  d8a5  d6d2  b7b5  d2d6  a5b6  c4c5 

I thought 15.O-O-O looked good in part because of 16.Qxd6.  I played through
with Zarkov and did not find any problems.  If Black exchanges Queens, then
White heads toward the endgame up a pawn.  If Black plays Qa5, White's
retreat to d2 leaves Black with a ways to go before building up an attack.

 16.       Ne8        15   7   d8b6  f1e2  c6d4  e2d3  b8c8  c3a4  b6c6 
 17. Nd5              41   7   f3f4  f7f5  e4f5  e6f5  g3f5  f8f5  f4e5  d6e5 
                               f1d3 
 17.       b5         27   7   e6d5  c4d5  c6d4  g3e2  d4e2  f1e2  b7b5 
 18. Ne3              24   7   d1c1  b5b4  c4c5  b4b3  a2b3  c6d4  c5d6  e6d5 
                               e4d5  d8d6 
 18.       Rh8       -11   7   b5b4  b2b3  d8a5  e3d5  e6d5  d2d5  a5d5  c4d5 

This move mystifies me.  Why would Fischer want his Rook over on h8?  Is
it really needed over there for defense?

 19. Rc1              27   7   c4b5  a6b5  d1c1  d8b6  f1d3  b8a8  a2a3 
 19.       Qb6         7   7   b5b4  f1d3  b4b3  a2a3  c6d4  e3d5  e6d5  c4d5 
 20. Bd3              37   7   f1d3  b5c4  d3c4  e8f6  c4e6  f7e6  e3c4 
 20.       Nd4        30   7   b5c4  d3c4  e6c4  c1c4  c6d4  h1c1  e8f6 
 21. Nd5              38   7   g3e2  e8f6  e3d5  e6d5  c4d5  b8c8  e2d4  b6d4 
 21.       Qa7        10   7   b6b7  g3e2  b5c4  d3c4  e6d5  c4d5  b7b4 
 22. Nf1               6   7   b1a1  b5c4  d3c4  e6d5  c4d5  e8f6  d5c4 
 22.       Nf6        -5   8   b5c4  d3c4  e6d5  c4d5  e8f6  f1e3  f6d5  e3d5 
 23. Nfe3             12   8   d5f6  g7f6  c4c5  a7d7  c5d6  d7d6  f1e3  f6g7 
 23.       Bxd5       -4   8   b5c4  d3c4  f6d5  e3d5  e6d5  c4d5  b8b5  b1a1 
 24. cxd5             32   8   c4d5  b5b4  b2b3  a6a5  e3c2  d4b5  d3b5  b8b5 
 24.       Rbc8        8   7   b8c8  h1f1  c8c1  f1c1  h8f8  e3c2  f8c8  c2d4 
                               c8c1  d2c1  a7d4 

Zarkov agrees with Fischer, but I still would think it better to get Rh8
into play.

 25. Rcf1             15   7   e3c2  d4c2  d3c2  a7d4  d2d4  e5d4  c2d3  c8c1 
                               h1c1 
 25.       Qe7        -2   7   c8c5  f3f4  a7e7  f1f2  h8c8  f4e5  d6e5 

Jeff Ely wrote:  "I was wondering if Spassky missed a shot on move 25:
25 Nf5+" etc.  I couldn't make anything of it either.  I guess I tried
around here for a couple of hours, and I couldn't get compensation for
any sacrifices.  I did get a perpetual once, but that means little
because of all of the takebacks and moves that I forced.

 26. g4                9   7   g2g4  f6d7  g4h5  h8h5  f3f4  h5h4  h1h4  e7h4 
                               f4e5  d6e5 
 26.       Nd7         8   7   f6d7  f3f4  h5g4  e3g4  f7f5  e4f5  g6f5 
 27. g5               38   7   g4g5  g7g8  f3f4  d7c5  f4e5  c5d3  d2d3  e7e5 

Perhaps this is the anser to my question about Rh8.  27.gxh5 just leads
to 27...Rxh5, 28...Rxh4.  But why 27.g5?  Why not keep the tension?
Or how about 27.f4 hxg4 28.Nxg4 Rxh4 29.fxe5 dxe5 etc.  I couldn't find
a win there, so I guess the sacrifice is unsound---just speculative.

 27.       Kf8         7   7   f7f6  e3c2  d4c2  d3c2  f6g5  h4g5  h8f8 
 28. Rf2              39   8   f3f4  f8g8  f1f2  d7c5  h1c1  c8e8  f4e5  c5d3 
                               d2d3  e7e5 
 28.       Ke8        41   8   d7c5  f3f4  c8e8  f4e5  e7e5  h1f1  e8e7  f2f4 
 29. Bf1              39   8   f3f4  d7c5  f4e5  d6e5  h1f1  h8f8  d3c2  e7d6 
 29.       Nc5        18   7   f7f6  d2a5  c8a8  g5f6  e7f6  f1d3  f6f4 
 30. Bh3              43   7   f1g2  f7f6  h1c1  e7d8  f3f4  f6g5  f4g5 
 30.       Rc7        30   8   c8c7  d2a5  h8f8  h1c1  f7f5  e4f5  g6f5  g5g6 
 31. Rc1              28   7   b2b4  c5a4  h1c1  a4b6  f3f4  b6c4  e3c4  b5c4 
                               f4e5  e7e5 
 31.       Ncb3     -267   8   d4b3  a2b3  c5b3  d2c3  b3c1  c3a3  e7d8  a3a6 
 32. axb3           -169   9   a2b3  d4b3  d2c3  c7c3  c1c3  b3c5  b2b4  c5b7 
                               c3c8  b7d8 
 32.       Nxb3     -207   9   d4b3  c1c7  b3d2  f2d2  e7c7  d2c2  c7a5  c2c8 
                               e8e7  c8h8  a5e1  b1a2  e1e3 
 33. Rc6            -200   8   d2c3  b3c1  c3a3  b5b4  a3a6  e8f8  e3c4  c1d3 

David Fry reports:

	Spassky's 31. Rc1 in game 8 was judged a good move by Robert
	Byrne and Deep Thought II in the New York Times, to which
	Fischer answered 31....Ncb3? 32. axb3 Nxb3. But Spassky
	followed up with the awful 33.Rc6? rather than 33.Rc3 which
	would have given him all the winning chances.

This is surprising.  What is wrong 31...Ncb3?  I can see that 33.Rc6 is
inferior, but 31...Ncb3 seems fine.  I see that Zarkov recommends
31.Ndb3, but it doesn't seem to make any difference which Knight leads
off.

As for 33.Rc3, I would like to know what these winning chances are.  I
see: 33.Rc3 Nxd2 34.Rxd2 Rxc3 35.bxc3.  White's responses are forced,
and I don't see any promising sacs.  Black's weakness seems to be that
his Rook is shut in, and Zarkov offers an immediate 35...f6, giving the
King room to maneuver and threatening to create a passed pawn on h to
go with the one on a.  The knight goes nowhere fast.

Let's see: 35...f6 36.Bc8 Qa7 37.Nd1 fxg5 38.hxg5 Qg1 39.Bxa7 h4
40.Bxb5+ Ke7 41.Kc2 h3 42.Nf2 h2....  Black wins the Knight and joins
Q+R on the 8th.

And that's the naive version.  Zarkov would hold the Q-side pawns by
playing 38...Kd8 39.Be6 Qg1.

I thought that 36.Be6 looked better than Bc8, but even there White does
not have a reasonable way to get K+R into the attack, and Black is
still creating a passed pawn on h.

Or, 36.Rg2 and Rf8 prevents a break through by White and threatens
37...fxg5 38.Rxg5 Rxf3.  If 37.Nd1 fxg5 38.Rxg5 Rxf3 39.Be6 Qf6, and
the Queen holds the line while the Rook attacks.

I also briefly looked at 36.Ra2 Qa7 and at 36.c4 fxg5 37.cxb5, which
would give the Knight a change to come into play.  But 37...Rf8 38.Rc2
Rxf3 39.Be6 Qb7.  Well, lots of variations, but Black has his Rook in
play, and his King can waddle out of trouble on the dark squares.
White just can't get his forces organized quickly enough to pose a real
threat.

[GREAT!  Turns out that Byrne/DT II said 33.Qc3, not 33.Rc3.  I will
just continue....]

Or let's take Zarkov's move: 33.Qc3.  Inferior would be 33...Rxc3,
which allows the equalizing 34.Rxc3 Nc5 35.b4 Qa7 36.bxc5 dxc5.  Now
37.d6 gives White an advanced passed pawn.  On the other hand, Black
has triple connected passed pawns.  Zarkov scores them about even.
Black's crucial task is to activate that Rook (perhap I was right about
Rh8 being weak after all?).  Thanks to the Bishop, Black has to go for
Kf8-g7, giving White time to put a Rook behind the passed d6.  After
38...Kg7, White has 39.Rd5, doubling up on c5 and attacking e5.

Better is 33...Nxc1 34.Qa3 b4 35.Qxa6 Kf8 36.Nc2 b3 37.Kxc1 Ra7 38.Qd3
bxc2 39.Rxc2 Ra1+ 40.Kd2 Rh1.  Black has given up a passed pawn for the
exchange and the initiative.

According to Byrne/DTII, White has all of the winning chances, but I
don't see it.  Black's play has been reasonably forceful.  Zarkov
still scores Black up by about 200 points (about 2 pawns).

 33.       Nxd2+    -402   8   b3d2  f2d2  c7c6  d5c6  e7a7  e3d5  a7g1  b1a2 
                               g1h1  h3d7  e8f8 
 34. Rxd2           -370   9   f2d2  e8f8  c6a6  c7a7  a6a7  e7a7  d2e2  a7a4 
                               h3d7 
 34.       Kf8      -378   9   e8f8  c6a6  c7a7  a6a7  e7a7  d2d3  b5b4  h3c8 
                               a7a4 
 35. Rxa6           -398   8   c6a6  c7a7  a6c6  a7a8  d2e2  f8g7  e3c2  f7f6 
 35.       Ra7      -410   8   c7a7  a6c6  a7a8  e3c2  e7a7  d2d1  a7a2  b1c1 
                               a8d8 
 36. Rc6            -429   8   a6c6  f7f6  d2g2  a7a8  e3c2  f6g5  g2g5  f8g7 
 36.       Kg7      -425   8   f8g7  e3c2  f7f6  c2a3  h8b8  d2c2  f6g5  h4g5 
 37. Bf1            -437   8   e3c2  h8b8  c2a3  e7d8  h3f1  d8a5  d2e2  b5b4 
 37.       Ra1+     -441   8   b5b4  f1c4  h8a8  e3c2  f7f6  d2g2  f6g5  g2g5 

This sacrifice also seemed strange to me, but I certainly was not able to
improve by going for a mate.  I guess by giving back some material, Fischer
eliminates counterchances.

 38. Kxa1           -239   9   b1a1  e7a7  a1b1  a7e3  b1c2  e3f3  f1d3  h8d8 
                               c2b3  g7h7 
 38.       Qa7+     -258   9   e7a7  a1b1  a7e3  b1c2  b5b4  f1c4  e3f3  c4d3 
                               h8d8  c2b3 
 39. Kb1            -250   9   a1b1  a7e3  b1c2  b5b4  f1c4  e3f3  c4d3  h8d8 
                               c2b3 
 39.       Qxe3     -253   8   a7e3  b1c2  e3f3  f1d3  h8d8  d2e2  f3f4  d3b5 
                               f4h4 
 40. Kc2            -254   8   b1c2  e3f3  f1d3  h8d8  d2e2  b5b4  e2d2  f3h1 
 40.       b4       -308   8   e3f3  f1g2  f3e3  c2d1  h8a8  d1c2  a8a1  c6c8