The PGN to copy & paste:

[Event “?”]
[Site “?”]
[Date “1961.08.22”]
[Round “?”]
[White “Bust King’s Gambit”]
[Black “Fischer, Bobby”]
[Result “0-1”]
[ECO “C38”]
[PlyCount “28”]

{A Bust to the King’s Gambit by Bobby Fischer, 1961 The King’s Gambit has
lost popularity, but not sympathy. Analysts treat it with kid gloves and seem
reluctant to demonstrate an outright refutation. “The Chessplayers Manual” by
Gossip and Lipschutz, published in 1874, devotes 237 pages to this gambit
without arriving at a conclusion. To this day the opening has been analyzed
romantically – not scientifically. Moderns seem to share the same unconscious
attitude that caused the old-timers to curse stubborn Steinitz: “He took the
beauty out of chess.” To the public, the player of the King’s Gambit exhibits
courage and derring-do. The gambit has been making a comeback with the younger
Soviet masters, notably Spassky (who defeated Bronstein, Averbach and myself
with it). His victories rarely reflected the merits of the opening since his
opponents went wrong in the mid-game. It is often the case, also, as with
Santasiere and Bronstein, that the King’s Gambit is played with a view to a
favorable endgame. Spassky told me himself the gambit doesn’t give White much,
but he plays it because neither does the Ruy Lopez nor the Giuocco Piano. The
refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it. In my opinion the King’s
Gambit is busted. It loses by force.} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d6 $1 ({This
is the key to a troublesome position, a high-class “waiting move.” At Mar Del
Plata, 1959, I played} 3… g5 {against Spassky, but this is inexact because
it gives White drawing chances in the ensuing ending: e.g.,} 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5
Nf6 6. d4 d6 7. Nd3 Nxe4 8. Bxf4 Bg7 {and now} 9. c3 $1 {(replacing Spassky’s
Nc3)} Qe7 10. Qe2 Bf5 11. Nd2 {leads to an ending where Black’s extra Pawn is
neutralized by White’s stranglehold on the dark squares, especially f4}) ({
Another good try, but also inexact, is the Berlin Defense:} 3… h6 4. d4 g5 5.
h4 Bg7 6. g3 g4 ({also playable is} 6… d6 7. gxf4 g4) 7. Nh2 fxg3 8. Nxg4 (8.
Qxg4 {loses to} gxh2 9. Qxg7 Qxh4+ 10. Kd1 Qf6) 8… d5 9. e5 Bf5 10. Bf4 {
where Black cannot demonstrate any advantage.}) ({Of course,} 3… d5 {
equalizes easily, but that’s all.}) 4. Bc4 (4. d4 {transposes, the only
difference if White tries to force matters after} g5 5. h4 g4 6. Ng5 ({White
also gets no compensation after} 6. Bxf4 gxf3 7. Qxf3 Nc6) ({or} 6. Ng1 Bh6)
6… f6 $1 7. Nh3 gxh3 8. Qh5+ Kd7 9. Bxf4 Qe8 $1 10. Qf3 Kd8 {and with his
King and Queen reversed, Black wins easily.}) 4… h6 $1 {This in conjunction
with Black’s previous move I would like to call the Berlin Defense Deferred.
By this subtle transposition Black knocks out the possibility open to White in
the last note (to move 3).} 5. d4 g5 6. O-O Bg7 7. c3 ({Necessary to protect
the d-pawn.} 7. g3 {is always met by} g4) 7… Nc6 ({Here there is
disagreement as to Black’s best move. Puc and Rabar, Euwe, Keres, and most
analysts give the text as the mainline and mention 7…Ne7(!) in passing. I
think} 7… Ne7 {is best because there is no reason why Black should not
strive to castle K-side: e.g.,} 8. g3 d5 $1 9. exd5 fxg3 10. hxg3 ({if} 10. Ne5
gxh2+ $1 11. Kh1 O-O 12. d6 Qxd6 {wins}) 10… O-O 11. Qb3 Qd6 12. Kg2 Nf5 {
wins. There is little practical experience with this sub-variation.}) 8. Qb3 ({
if} 8. g3 g4 9. Nh4 f3 10. Nd2 {Euwe and other analysts betray their
soft-mindedness toward this opening by giving the inferior} ({In this last
variation (instead of 10 Nd2) White can vary with} 10. Qb3 {but then comes
Nimzovitch’s beautiful winning line:} Qe7 11. Nf5 Bxf5 12. exf5 (12. Qxb7 Rb8
13. Qxc6+ Qd7 14. Qxd7+ Bxd7 {and Black has a winning endgame}) 12… O-O-O 13.
Bxf7 Qe2 14. Qe6+ (14. Rf2 Nxd4 $1 15. Rxe2 fxe2 {wins.}) 14… Rd7 $1 15. Rf2
Qd1+ 16. Rf1 Qc2 17. Nd2 Nf6 {(threatening Nd8)} 18. Bg6 (18. Qb3 Qxb3 19. Bxb3
d5 {with a winning endgame}) 18… d5 {followed by} 19. — Ne7 {with a winning
game for Black.}) 10… Bf6 $6 11. Ndxf3 gxf3 12. Qxf3 {- “unclear”!! This is
yet another example of sentimental evaluation – after} Qe7 {followed by} 13. —
Bh3 {and} 14. — O-O-O {Black wins easily. The Pawn on f6 is a bone in
White’s throat so why force him to sacrifice when he must anyway? 10…Qe7 is
the strongest move.}) 8… Qe7 9. h4 Nf6 ({Again theoretical disagreement.
Perfectly good is} 9… g4 $1 10. Bxf4 ({forced, not} 10. Nfd2 Nxd4 $1 11. cxd4
Bxd4+ {etc.}) 10… gxf3 11. Rxf3 {- given by analysts again as “unclear,” but
after} Nf6 {followed by} 12. — O-O {, White has nothing for the piece.}) 10.
hxg5 hxg5 11. Nxg5 Nxe4 {A wild position, but Black is still master.} 12. Bxf7+
({The game is rife with possibilities} 12. Nxe4 Qxe4 13. Rxf4 Qe1+ 14. Rf1 Qh4
15. Bxf7+ Kd8 16. Qd5 Ne5 $1 17. dxe5 Bxe5 {(threatening Bh2 and mate)} 18. Rd1
Qg3 19. — {wins, owing to the threat of} Rh1+ $1) 12… Kd8 13. Nxe4 ({not}
13. Ne6+ Bxe6 14. Qxe6 Qxe6 15. Bxe6 Nxd4 $1) 13… Qxe4 14. Bxf4 (14. Rxf4 {
also loses to} Qe1+ 15. Rf1 Rh1+ 16. Kxh1 Qxf1+ 17. Kh2 Qxc1 {etc.}) 14… Nxd4
{And Black wins… Of course White can always play differently, in which case
he merely loses differently.} 0-1


One thought on “A Bust to the King’s Gambit – Bobby Fischer”

Leave a Reply to Dhinesh Muthuvel Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook