Vasily Smyslov. Robert Fischer and His Book (foreword)

I think that no other chess player of our time is as discussed, both in print and writing, as Robert Fischer. The opinions of his colleagues and journalists about his personality and playing style vary wildly.

Who are you, Grandmaster Fischer?

Robert James Fischer was born on 9th March 1943 in Chicago. When he was two years old, his father abandoned the family, and his mother, a nurse, had to raise both Bobby and his older sister Joan by herself. At six, Joan taught Bobby to play chess, and when he turned 10, chess became his main desire and purpose in life. By that time, the Fischer family already moved to New York.

Soon it was evident that Bobby was made for chess. Discovery of the ancient game's secret, analysis of the best players' games came very easily and naturally for him, and he quickly reaped the rewards. Fischer said that he'd already started to learn Russian language to keep up with the theory, read the Soviet chess literature in original language and learn from the Soviet grandmasters.

In 1955, he started playing in tournaments, and his first successes came a year later: he won the US youth championship, shared 4th-8th places in the US open championship and 8th-12th at the Canadian Open.

In 1957, Fischer made a sensation. He won all three United States championships: youth, open and official!

Robert Fischer, both as a person and a player, always attracted the interest of Soviet players. In early 1957, the  Shakhmaty v SSSR magazine reported on the 13 years-old boy's successes and printed his game against Donald Byrne. A year and a half later, they interviewed Fischer and published some of his annotations.

The interest was mutual. And so, when Robert asked to visit the Soviet Union before going to Europe for his first Interzonal, he and Joan got an invitation from Moscow.

While Joan was sightseeing in Moscow, Robert's one destination was the Central Chess Club, where he played against the strongest masters and even grandmasters.

More than thirteen years have passed since then. The wonderkid turned into a brilliant grandmaster who contributed a lot to the chess culture. His bright talent, coupled with prodigious work ethic and unlimited attraction for chess, helped him to overcome the obstacles each sportsman has to face.

The Soviet players have valued Fischer's achievements highly on the first stage of his ascent, culminating with the convincing win at the 1962 Stockholm Interzonal. This period wasn't completely free of setbacks, but after each such setback, he would bounce back with even more brilliant performances. In Portoroz 1958, he became the youngest ever international grandmaster and world championship candidate, but after that, his performances took a small dip - 3rd-4th in Mar del Plata, 4th-7th in Santiago, 3rd-4th in Zurich. After winning in Mar del Plata in 1960, he had to "survive" the 13th place in Buenos Aires. Finally, after the unfinished match with Reshevsky in 1961 (5.5-5.5), he finished second in a very strong field in Bled and then won the aforementioned Stockholm Interzonal. In the meantime, Fischer would win the U.S. championships - he's currently a 8-time champion.

No wonder, the Soviet players said and wrote, that the 19 years-old young man didn't win the 1962 Curacao Candidates'. Fischer just wasn't mature enough to defeat all the extra-class grandmasters. But he didn't even try to search for reasons of this relative failure within himself, preferring to point fingers to... "team tactics" of the winners.

We were upset by that reaction by Fischer. After playing very well at the Varna Olympiad, he would ignore the international competitions almost completely, even missing a World Championship cycle that opened with the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal. It was baffling, because we knew that Robert loved chess as much as ever, and his playing level didn't decrease. In those years, he won five tournaments in the United States, and his "phone-in" participation in the Capablanca Memorial in Havana (1965) brought him good results as well - he shared 2nd-4th places.

What was the reason for his temporary retirement from the World Championship scene? Was he upset or disillusioned? Or, on the contrary, he understood only too well that it was still early for him to take part in the competition? As the Curacao tournament showed, victory was far from guaranteed...

The precise reason is hard to find, but in that period, there were some talks in the press that Fischer had to play a World Championship match without taking part in qualifying, that he was already an "unofficial" world champion, etc.

In 1966, Fischer's second period of sport and creative activity began, and he was again on ascent. At first, his success wasn't complete - he finished second in Santa Monica, behind Spassky, but then Fischer triumphantly won in Monaco and Skople, and we all were glad to see that Caissa, the chess goddess, hasn't lost one of her most loyal servants.

And then there was the 1967 Sousse Interzonal, where Fischer scored a string of wins... but then became unhappy with something! What's most strange, while the first "crisis" was a consequence of his 4th place at Curacao, the second one came when he had a convincing lead, with 7 wins and 3 draws.

Sensation! Lots of hype in the press! Discussions, speculations, assumptions... and again, the talks about the "unofficial world champion". Did Fischer do that on purpose?

Anyway, by withdrawing from the tournament, Fischer did harm to himself first and foremost. Sadly, Fischer the person again juxtaposed himself with Fischer the chess player, and the former scored an absolutely unnecessary win... He did win a couple of small international tournaments, then came to Lugano, but didn't play at the Olympiad. The American team had to compete without their leader.

For two more years, Fischer withdrew from competitions and chess life in general - until the Match of the Century in Belgrade (1970). Fischer did arrive, but would he play? In the world team's camp, there was suddenly a dispute - who should play at the first board? The Soviet players, especially Spassky and Petrosian, agreed to the sudden switch of the first two boards, even though it was certainly not beneficial to them. They agreed to maximize the strength of their opponents! They agreed to facilitate Fischer's new comeback! They agreed to avoid the disorganization of a historical event and help its organizers.

Fischer himself was also a good sport. Even though both computers and public opinion were behind him, he admitted that Larsen deserved the first board because he was more active in the previous years.

This marked the beginning of the strongest non-Soviet player's successes in Europe and America. After Belgrade, where he prevailed over a very difficult opponent, Petrosian, there was Zagreb (1st), and then a very convincing win in Buenos Aires. At the Siegen Olympiad Fischer lost a principial game against Spassky and couldn't score first, but then he won the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal in brilliant style.

From November 1970 to November 1971, Fischer was the hottest topic of the chess press, chess players' talks and even people who weren't exactly chess fans. Everything was discussed: his playing style and clothes, tournament successes and eccentricity, rude remarks about his colleagues, including Soviet players, in various interviews, and very correct behaviour over the board... But the main topic was, of course, Fischer's tournament successes. Not just the fact that he won the tournament in Spain, then all the Candidates' matches and is now facing the world champion, but the sensational manner he won these tournaments in.

Fischer gave an incredibly long winning streak stretching several competitions, without losing or even drawing. In the Candidates' matches, he destroyed Taimanov and Larsen 6-0, and then defeated Petrosian 6.5-2.5, handing him four straight losses. Nothing even remotely similar ever happened in chess history. So, no wonder that such an impressive score by itself, without analyzing the actual games and accompanying psychological factors, led to the widespread notion of a "superplayer", a nonsurpassed genius, the strongest player to ever sit at the board.

I must admit, Fischer is truly singular in some regards. It's hard to remember another player who is trying to win every game with such a fervour. Even when he already reaches his tournament goal, Fischer's playing doesn't become peaceful and drawish, unlike most grandmasters': the leader becomes even more aggressive and tenacious. In these moments, especially in matches, Fischer very cleverly uses the psychological factors of chess; he understands that his opponent cannot be satisfied with a draw, and they would play to win at all costs.

Objectively speaking, Fischer's chess strength is very high, but still, you can't consider him a "superplayer". Paradoxically, even his latest match against Petrosian, which he won crushingly, shows that. If we study the first five games, we'll see that even Fischer is still human and has his weaknesses.

This is the glorious path walked by the first foreign player to become a World Championship candidate after the war. For almost quarter of a century - ever since Mikhail Moiseevich Botvinnik won the world championship in 1948 - no foreign grandmasters managed to reach this height. There were four more world champions since that time, and all of them were Soviet players. This is the historical accomplishment of the Soviet chess school that paved new ways of chess development. The ways that all modern chess players follow...

And so, the chess Olympus is now stormed by Fischer - a young, ambitious player with an insatiable desire to win. A very strong player whose love for chess is boundless.

That's why we translated his book into Russian: to introduce our chess fans to the American grandmaster's games and his chess worldviews.

The book will help you understand the true place of this outstanding American player in the chess world.

This book gives us the key to one of Fischer's biggest success secrets: his undying loyalty to the chess art and ceaseless creative searches. The book solves this secret in full, and that's why it has lasting value.

Aleksei Suetin. Afterword

Fischer after Sousse

Several years have passed since the last game in this book was played. After "fleeing" Sousse in 1967, Fischer hasn't played for a while. Until Spring 1970, he only played in two minor international tournaments in 1968 (Netanya and Vinkovci).

But at the Match of the Century in 1970, we saw a new, improved Fischer. That first performance after a break was successful, seemingly rekindling his ambitions once again.

Analyzing the games played in the last couple of years, we can clearly see the fruits of Fischer's colossal labour in 1967-1970. Yes, Fischer didn't rest on his laurels! His fanatical loyalty to chess helped him to develop a strong chess technique and very precise opening repertoire.

After Sousse, Fischer played 120 games (including the Candidates' Final against Petrosian), scoring 101 point (+86-4=30) - around 85 percent. This is a very high result, especially considering the fact that the majority of the games (72) were played against grandmasters. He scored 59 points in those 72 games - 82 percent. And against masters, his score was 43/48 - around 90 percent.

The numbers speak for themselves. They clearly show that Fischer's ascent towards the chess throne is fully deserved.

An epic chess struggle waits ahead.

A Modern Player's Style and Strength

Universalism is a distinguishing characteristic of any modern strong player. If a chess player wants to achieve best results, he must be armed with a full arsenal. This, of course, doesn't preclude a bright, creative personality - on the contrary, it's a requirement. Fischer is a universal player, but he's staunchly loyal to the principles of a classical positional (not the new "irrational!") style.

Fischer's playing style reminds me most of Paul Morphy's rational, very effective manner (by the measures of his time, of course).

Indeed, the distinctive features of Fischer's playing are great clarity, concreteness, rationality of thought. Even the strongest grandmasters can be carried away over the board: tempting, unfeasible, but fantastic continuations can disrupt their calculations. But when you study Fischer's playing (even in blitz!), you get an impression that he casts all those "pretty things" aside immediately, coldly, without hesitation. He directs all his efforts towards searching for truth. By the way, that's why Fischer never gets into time trouble.

Grandmaster Korchnoi once told me about a curious episode that happened in one of his recent games against Fischer. After thinking for a long time, Korchnoi offered an original, but unclear pawn sacrifice (Fischer is known for usually accepting them). Fischer, without thinking much, declined the sacrifice and chose a quieter, more solid move. When Korchnoi asked Fischer after the game whether he even considered taking the pawn, Fischer answered, "Not much. I believed you!"

This is not laziness or shallowness. This is the American grandmaster's pragmatism.

Fischer's playing style is very practical, but not dry. All his efforts are directed on achieving sporting success; he's able to think economically and rationally and greatly concentrate during the game. This also says a lot about Fischer as a sportsman. He's very ambitious and always trying to win. There's no place for short draws in his lexicon. His motto is fighting until the last pawn! And this fight, thanks to the American grandmaster's massive practical strength, often ends successfully, and success makes him even stronger: if you already have a good points cushion, you become less nervous.

Even though Fischer always wants to win and fights until the bare kings, he never goes against the positional principles. If a draw logically follows from the position, let there be a draw! But as soon as his partner tries to defy the laws of positional game, Fischer's eagle eye immediately spots even the smallest balance upsets. Fischer immediately gets aggressive, but still remains positionally correct! That's why Taimanov and Larsen are more at fault for their clean losses against Fischer. In complications, or in pursuit of complication, they forgot positional principles.

Fischer was once asked whether he invented some new, previously unknown method of play. "No," Fischer answered, "it's all due to mistakes made by my losing opponents. I've just exploited these mistakes."

Here, we must touch upon another question: what  is chess player's practical strength? Irrespectively of the style, practical strength is always tied into the chessmaster's "faultlessness", the ability to make as few mistakes as possible.

Despite the intensive development of chess theory and increasing volume of available information, even the greatest chess masters still haven't solved all the mysteries of the ancient game. And this means that even they can make mistakes. Moreover, new discoveries in chess strategy always beget new mistakes... So, in a tournament game over the board, the player who makes less mistakes can be practically stronger than someone who tries some new ways.

"The stronger player is the one who makes less mistakes". Sometimes this obvious truth gets forgotten in deep discussion about the nuances of this or that outstanding player. Fischer managed to minimize obvious mistake in his playing, and the results that he achieved make us pay more attention to the question of a chess player's strength. Fischer's style is simple, his strategy is clear, and his strength is enormous. Today's Fischer is in a brilliant form, but there is nothing in his game that cannot be analyzed with our usual tools.

Fischer's creative range is very wide. He follows the positional laws very strictly, but never avoids sharp continuations. If the position requires, he will choose the most sharp and risky move. This is corroborated by his sharp opening repertoire with Black and the analysis of his games. His games against Taimanov and Larsen were also very illustrative. Larsen's efforts to drag Fischer into the depths of "irrational", purely intuitive game ended with utter failure. The main reason for that was Fischer being stronger in calculation and concrete playing and made Larsen suffer in heavy time trouble. Fischer's great concrete calculation skill helps him to be especially comfortable in open play, where he spots and uses even the smallest mistakes.

So, we have before us a chess player with a wide creative range and clear classical style. Fischer likes clarity, but does not avoid complications. In complications, he's very strong due to his outstanding quickness and precision of calculation, and even the recognized authorities in that field find it hard to compete. Add to that constant activity, great combative skills and superb technique. We also should not forget that Fischer is young and healthy, that he adheres to a sport regimen, plays tennis and swims, so he doesn't get tired towards the end of the game and remains in constant good form. These are the strengths of Fischer the chess player. And does he have weaknesses, and if he does, which are those? Let's try to find out by analyzing Fischer's games.

Next in the series: Aleksei Suetin analyzes Bobby Fischer's games post- My 60 Memorable Games .