Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1340520/10-greatest-chess-games-From-Kasporov-vs-Bobby-Fischers-victory.html.

Game 6 routinely gets listed in top 5 or 10 all-time games, 1972 Fischer-Spassky. The position after 15 dxc5:

  But instead of Black taking with Pawn, 15 ...Rxc5 stands Black advantage, and nowhere found yet is this annotated (several versions checked back in 2012).  See what programs say since I have not bothered yet.  The 'Rxc5' was discovered when this thread reviewed all the games in 40-year anniversary 2012 as  the day they occurred. Game_6.  GMs have observed Spassky's supposed mistake 14 ...a6 instead of 14 ...Qb7, called ''correct."  Where is the fallacy?  No offense if someone can explain why Black does not easily at least equalize that way -- since we variantists are expert at dozens of games, not just the one peewee 64-version of Fischer/Kasparov/Carlsen.  Is there some sure attack against the unguarded Queen -- or Rook -- lurking, or something else?

 Looking back again ChessBase currently runs a 1972 interview before the two-month match.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/bobby-fischer-on-the-dick-cavett-show.  Fischer gives a quick television lesson right before the Fischer-Spassky Reykjavik match, "Lose the King, lose the game," but since you  cannot capture the King it almost suggests a CV.  He uses "straight" for Rook and may not have known the word 'orthogonal' as alternative. Queen "a very powerful piece." His describing Knight as two straight then one straight is inferior to perception of Knight to oblique nearest squares automatically.  This is really Chess for Dummies.  It is easier for us in wake of Gilman's so many non-radial long-range leapers and also oblique Falcon, claimed first of the four fundamental chess pieces.    Fischer says he actually dreams of detective mysteries not Chess.  He answers Ralph Nader presciently about Chess live tv events, saying just reduce time controls to avoid 3 hours. Also it is second nature to Fischer already 45 years ago that Chess is finite but "beyond the mind's comprehension," he means all at once.

The result of the match 12.5-8.5 Fischer over Spassky changes to Spassky
over Fischer 11.0-10.0 with these four moves improved:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=29434.
However, there was a fifth move alteration to factor in, Game 11, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044724, where 22 ...Bb5 wins for Black in this case Fischer.  That causes revision total points to 10.5-10.5. Since Spassky as the champion appropriately would have the tiebreak of this kind, as done today, Spassky wins again 10.5 to 10.5.  Petrosian in 1966 defended the title against Spassky 12.5-11.5, and then in 1969 Spassky had become world chess champion with 12.5-10.5 over Petrosian. So Fischer-Spassky 1972 was Boris Spassky's third championship match, and he reigned 3 years the same duration as Bobby Fischer more or less.

The outcome:
Fischer 12.5 - 8.5 on winning Game 21 Thursday 31.August.1972, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008424.
Games 22-24 were not played because no catch-up was possible.  He can
only be said to have played competitively two or three times after Game 21
against Spassky. One of course is the Spassky-Fischer revenge rematch in
1992. What were the other one or two? Did any other champion quit immediately upon winning the title? No, but Paul Morphy came close to such abrupt departure, following similar pattern of retirement. (Joe, David, sorry I failed to close link that now highlights part of Muller's comment out of thread, looking for a '>' and  cannot reach the last comment; this parenthesis to be erased once those 'Game 20/21' just erased, as Game 21 now is here above, and Muller's 'missing' comment gets back to 'Advantage'.)

There are two games left as it turns out. Inescapable conclusion is that the final points 12.5-8.5 could hypothetically be reversed with these individual moves and indicated result:

GAME 6: Change to new move 15 ...Rxc5 and Black would win not White, 0-1 not 1-0, for interim 11.5-9.5. ...

GAME 13: New move 25 f5... and White should at least Draw, 1/2-1/2 not 0-1, for interim 11.0-10.0.

GAME 15: New move 28 R x e5... and White definitely wins, 1-0 not 1/2-1/2, for interim 10.5-10.5.

GAME 5: New move 27 Qb1... and White should Draw, 1/2-1/2 not 0-1 (only this Game 5 annotation to be completed yet), for interim/final result 11.0-10.0, now Spassky total on the left side for the first time.

Each of the above four changes is progressive accrual in favor of Spassky and against Fischer. Thus with just those four revised moves in different games, Spassky could have been winner 11.0 to 10.0 in re-tallying of the points total by way of thought-experiment.

After 25 f5... instead,

If 25 ...e6 26 f6, Or if 25 ...f6 26 exg6, Or if 25 ...gxf5 26 Nxf5, Or if 25 ...g5 26 Bxg5, Or if 25 ...Nc4 26 Qc1, Or if 25 ...h5 26 g5. Prevailed upon to follow through, each of the above stands White better. Fischer won this Game 13 with the Black pieces but given the first 24 moves, White-Spassky should win with improved Move 25.

Now the favorite Game_6, mentioned above easily wins for Black not White by its correct Move 15 ...Rxc5. That example would switch the interim re-total to Fischer 11.5 and Spassky 9.5 after all the 21 games of championship played. Other single key move changes proven would have given Spassky, hypothetically doing the right thing, more points, yet to be itemized specifically here, and the tournament.

Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044730. Game 15 from Draw to
Win is as striking as classic Game 6 from Loss to Win.  For the record in
the above score of Game 15, after 27 ...Bxe5 28 Rxe5 is win for White, or
cause for Black to resign, chiefly because if 28 ...Qxe5 29 Nxf7, forking Queen
and Rook.  Game 16 played to the day forty years 20.August.1972, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044370, Draws.  Should it?
Fischer after Game 13 has 6 wins to Spassky's 3, and that bears on the topic first-move advantage in cvpage, Fischer playing less aggressively or at least riskily after Game 13, contributing to
 the next several games Drawn.
Back to today's Game 16, notice by Move 12 completion, both sides are down to four pieces and Queens are gone. 
'16...bxc4' is suspect, tripling pawns all three in the c-file, in favor of 16 ...Nc5 instead.

Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044730. At the Game 15 it
turns out there is an immediate cause for resignation after the next White move. Fischer was known to say ''find a better move'' after finding a good one. Well, Fischer's 27 ...Bxe5 becomes a complete blunder if Spassky had seen the one right move in response. Move 28 is the right juncture where White goes wrong when having the edge already for a win. Taking Pawn-f7 with the Knight, suggested last comment, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=29398, may improve on White's actual '28 Qxf7', that just seals a Draw to Black-Fischer's benefit. '28 Nxf7' probably is still in Draw territory because of the couple of good potential Black follow-ups. However, the substituted correct move instead '28 Rxe5' and Fischer has to resign! It should by logical right go after the real 27 ...Bxe5 '28 Rxe5 Resign 1-0'.

In Game 15 played 17.August.1972,
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044730, White-Spassky has
been up a Pawn since Move 14. Continuing to simplify csutiously is guiding
Spassky when he trades Rooks, and right after that an ordinary Pawn
exchange is where White goes wrong. Instead of 28 Qxf7..., '28 Nxf7...'
could make this Draw a win for White. In the actual game, taking the h-Pawn puts White up two Pawns to no avail, but the h-Pawn will probably be short-lived anyway, so it's more important to capture the f7-pawn with the Knight at the candidate suspect Move 28, forking Bishop and Rook.

Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044369.  15.August.1972 there
afore was played forty years ago Game 14, a longish Draw.  In two Games 6 and 11 we have found one changed move which in each reverses the outcome, and there is a third example of that, Game 3. That third case is still to be documented and proven and the revised move stated. It is different only in perhaps being a gift by gentleman Boris Spassky, it appeared on first reading, after the disputing earlier two games. In all three one corrected move makes a win a loss, loss a win. Is that unusual or remarkable?  Certainly the much studied Fischer-Spassky championship Game 6 it is shocking. However, follow-up will see in general from other championship or grandmaster games, as Chessbase recently said Kasparov found two such instances in Kramnik games, where a single different move clearly yields the opposite result. Start of research on the question eventually follows this thread. (As of now, Game 13 annotation finds where White goes wrong but stops short of claiming the better move will reverse the outcome.)

Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128889. That Game 13 played
10.August.1972 has prior
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=29382.
Where does White go wrong? At dilly-dallying Move 25 Qc3. Queen wants to keep the off-center diagonal c1-h6 if possible.  The contested space is e6, as evidenced after the fact by Fischer's 26 ...e6. How about White's going 25 f5...?  Peculiarly no piece either side has a very good move for a turn or two here.  The focus after 25 f5... becomes on handling the Pawns in the northeast quadrant. Dreadful for Black because right in front of Black King. This way the f-Pawn gets moved twice in three moves and may well be a third time by another move or two. If it is going to drag on, all three Rook, Rook and Queen of White have incredible mobility compared to their counterparts.  With the accompanying Knight move Spassky made pushing back the Queen, Fischer is on the wall.

Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044368.  Game 12 played
8.August.1972 Draws. Match is in the second half, and after 12 games Fischer has won 5, Spassky 3 for scoring 7-5.

Continuing annotating Game 11, Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044724, 22 c5 Bb5 and both Queens are en prise. White cannot take the Bishop because 23 Qxb5 Qxb5. Instead for White, immediate Queen exchange 23 cxb6 Bxd3 should become winning for Black. If 23 Nc4 Qd8. That leaves only moving the White Queen, and anywhere off the diagonal gives Black positive exchange of Bishop for Rook. 

Conclusion is that like with pivotal Game 6, one changed move gives the full point to the other side than actually won it in the championship. The earlier Game 6   [ http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044366 ] should go for Spassky not Fischer with 15 ...Rxc5 in that one, and Game 11 here above should go for Fischer not Spassky with revised '22 ...Bb5'. Fischer's Game 11 22 ...Qb5 is weak. That's where Black goes wrong and loses Game 11.

Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044724, Game 11 played 6.August.1972. 

Option I.  22 c5 Bb5.

Option II. Fischer offering Queen trade is saying Queen will not figure in his mating
combination. Instead, 22 c5 Qd8 puts Black Queen central to some Pawn
combination in the offing (why rush it?), and Black seems to have the
initiative where neither did before. 'fxg4' is real trouble if done after the right Queen position is found, whereas 'cxd6' is not such a threat. In the actual game fxg4 was done and cxd6 was never done, White winning anyway without 'cxd6' because of Fischer's faulty haste. So after 22 c5 Qd8 23 Be2 may be the best White can do now, at least preventing 'fxg4'.

Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008423, where Game 10 is
played forty years ago to the day 3.August.1972. Where does Black go wrong? What would be better move than 26 ...axb5? Can Black save this one somehow?

Game 9 played 1.August.1972 Draws,
Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1128884.

Http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1340520/10-greatest-chess-games-from-Kasparov-vs-Bobby-Fischers-victory.html. Number 6 by the Mail in the list is Fischer-Spassky Game 6, that this thread shows Spassky wins with 15 ...Rxc5.
Game 8 played today 27.July.1972: Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044367.

Game 7 played today 25.July.1972 is Draw,
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044728.
Spassky should take the full point, not Fischer, in the last Game 6 with 15 ...Rxc5. No computer is having been used used for the hypothesis, and as well possibly with other annotations there is not even suggested a Black win missed yet at any other Move the Game 6 that puts Fischer ahead for the rest of the tournament.  Is there a saving move for Fischer in a Move 16 with the White Knight or something else? Black would appear to stand better after the corrected Move 15, and White's best chance to defer the outcome is the same 0-0 really made.

Where does Black go wrong in Game 6 played 23.July.1972? The tournmant now
becomes 3.5-2.5 and the games run to end of August.
Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044366. Instead of 15
...bxc5, how about taking with the Rook 15 ...Rxc5?  By 37 ...Nf6, it is too late as Fischer will inevitably under-trade Rook for that Knight in ensuing exchange sacrifice.  Once Spassky makes the supposed mistake 14 ...a6 instead of 14 ...Qb7, called ''correct'' and discovered later, it throws a monkey wrench into all the subsequent moves in not comparing exactly with any other score even since from rather early Move 15 on. Http://www.home.roadrunner.com/~etzel/72game6.htm.   //// Later: the link calls Game 6 here one of the best in the tournament. Can anyone find '15 ...Rxc5' annotated in support of Black? It appears after 15 ...Rxc5, 1 0-0 R-a7 or 1 Rxc5 Qxc5 or 1 b4 Rxc1, every choice advantages Black afterwards. Fischer's position may not be so great at this point with that right continuation against inactive Pawns of White. He only gets away with it upon quick Castling the very next move, which the forward Rook at c5 then would alleviate instead.

What was happening forty years ago to the day? 23.July.1972 Game 6, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044366. Move '41 Qf4 1-0' is just logical ending to the position with the advanced Pawn for White. The crisp Capablanca-like play came earlier. Move 41 is neat for what variantists think of as ''mad Queen OrthoChess'': rabiosa because perfecting Chess, Queen gains the Rook and Bishop power after year 1500. At move 41, if the Black Rook does not interpose, it is to be checkmate, and if Black Rook moves e7-h7, the Queen will be lost. It is not frequent without any Knight involved to get such interesting Scylla and Charybdis position letting Black no way out, despite up in material.

<IMG SRC="/play/pbm/drawdiagram.php?code=rnr3k5qpp1pp2b2p1BPp12Q3PN2PP3PPP2R1K2R&set=medium">

The tournament is well-spaced for ostensibly highest quality before computer days and this takes all
summer. Still on game 5 of 20.July.1972, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044723, it is the second Nimzo-Indian so
far, and experts credit frankly the win to Spassky's blunder in this very
last move 27.  The annotations put two question marks '??'. Namely, 27
Qc2 Bxa4.  No more moves and 0-1, series tied at 2.5-2.5. What should
Spassky play rather than Qc2 for the game to proceed normally, about equal in position as it is certainly in material? The Qc2 is not a move even for the local club. Was Fischer still rattling Spassky? The next
game is not til Monday.

What was happening forty yrs. ago to the day? Game 5 played 20.July.1972.
Just the four moves first define this one's opening, Nimzo-Indian
Defense: Huebner Variation. 
Http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044723. With Fischer win,
series ties 2.5 - 2.5. //////////////////  Tucking the Bishop behind the Pawns is far the most regular continuation, so Spassky can be said to vary with 5 e3.  Well, sort of, since a transpositional search shows once the Pawn is at e3, it is Gligoric System, a different classification for games past played, where the e2-e3 gets played at move 4 not move 5. Yet either way after White's fifth it is the exact same board position, just the different ways to arrive there.

Game 4, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044365, played forty
yrs. ago yesterday, 18.July.1972, is Draw, leaving the tournament score
Spassky 2.5, Fischer 1.5.
The whole schmeil through the first six moves by Fischer and Spassky is called what? Sicilian Defense: Fischer-Sozin Attack; Leonhardt Variation. Never mind just remembering the moves is easier, the name dramatizes the action. This game 4 is played back in the auditorium as the rest of the tournament. Now Sicilian Defense cum Fischer-Sozin Attack peaked in popularity around 1950. Since Fischer was not really player yet then, obviously specific names get made and attached over time.
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Defence.  See there that '1 e4 c5' is enough to make it Sicilian, or Sicilian Defence, just the c5 response to regular e4, get it? Then upon the established '6 ...e6' it is full-fledge Sicilian Defence Fischer-Sozin Attack.

Game three, http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044727. Previous contests Spassky and Fischer had seen Spassky winning three and two Draws. Played 40 yrs. ago July 16, afore game 3 was the first Fischer win between the two.  Only this one game was played in closed playing area, separate from spectators, without all the objected cameras. 
The Benoni opening played here has the six set moves and the divergencies begin with White move 7. Benoni Defense reached its peak popularity precisely the decade after this match. It seems repugnant to variantists, but they keep track of exact percentages of wins from what White's 7th move is. They have to since they operate in such a narrow realm within the imagined single right set of rules. Spassky's
 chosen 7 N f3-d2 wins what percentage of the time, rather unfairly using results before and since this game?  46.6%. Superficially Spassky's choice is best, as only '7 a4' has detectably higher percentage 50%.

If they don't continue the simultaneous Spassky-Fischer recap 40 yrs. ex post facto, we
will to some extent. Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8332.
Computers and chess their revived in-front-of-the-curve subject matter, how would CVs, or a few specific cvs or just a few more FRC-based initial positions,
complicate or solve the eventuality they describe that anymore a gm-computer match is become pointless? Or some of our modest Mutators: the Winther pawn drive rank 5, the Lasker stalemate as Draw, Italian free castling suggested by Chess Cafe Harding in the late 20th century upon Kasparov's 1997
loss to Deep Blue? Before the present environment, Chessbase used to feature computer tournaments
themselves with some frequency, and there are now separate specialty
sites for that.

Spassky won game 2 on forfeit since Fischer refused to seat himself when
the clock was started on 13 July 1972 (was it a friday the thirteenth too?). The dispute was over cameras' positioning. Score now Spassky 2
to Fischer 0, and game 3 is scheduled for today 16.July.1972, presumed deep word from Chessbase in the offing.
Historically Fischer has never beaten Spassky any single game and they are playing for world champion.

Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8323, where firsthand
Fischer loses game one.

Thirteen years ago thirteenth chess champion beat the world,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World. The one game over
weeks was even a lot more exciting and interesting than the two Deep Blue versus GK
six-game matches earlier, to anyone who followed the three of them all great sporting fare. In contrast, recent championship just concluded 2012 had Draws 10
and Decisive 2, and a technical tiebreak or blitz/rapids rather went to Anand.

World Chess Championship.
Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8194. Draws 10, Decisive 2.
Underwhelming says Chessbase. So what else is new, time to take Capablanca
seriously instead of saying for the 9th decade in a row he was wrong about
the Draw Death. Of  course he was wrong, just look at all the post-world
war two intricacies he never dreamed of, still going on. Look again at the
amazing to believe game 8 of this tournament of a Win in 17 moves, http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8175. What a game, what a fascinating turn of events.

World Chess Championship. Http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8190. 
Draws 9, Decisive 2.

World Chess Championship Games 6-8.
Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8175. 7 and 8 are decisive.
Draws 6, Decisive 2.

World Chess Championship G5.
Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8166.  Draws 5, Decisive 0. 
Sveshnikov, not playing, won the Latvian chess championship as recently as
2010, and game five was played within parameters of his system.

World Championship G4. Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8159.
Draws 4, Decisive 0. Unfulfilled fans packing Moscow to the tune of total
route.

World Championship G3.
Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8157. Draws 3, Decisive 0.
But for stodginess they should have gone to Capablanca Chess or something
else. That's what this proves, too many Draws is going to prove that as it
goes up and up.

World Championship G2.
Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8151.
Draws 2, Decisive 0.

Will they all be fighting Draws?
Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8148. This starts the count.
Draws 1, Decisive 0.

Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8108, F.i.d.e. Ilyumzhinov
and Dalai Lama at Chicago.

Shogi and Chess,  Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8079.