Refuting The King's Gambit III

FISCHER'S response to his defeat by Boris Spassky led to one of the most famous articles in chess history.

I have told something of the background to the article's publication, in the first issue of The American Chess Quarterly, in this post.

Fischer begins the article by complaining that modern annotators treat the opening with "kid gloves," analysing it "romantically - not scientifically."

He acknowledges the gambit is "making a comeback with the younger Soviet masters," but says Spassky admitted it gives White little, "but he plays it because neither does the Ruy Lopez nor the Giuoco Piano." 

Fischer dismisses lines in which Black declines the gambit, stating "the refutation of any gambit begins with accepting it."

His solution, after the moves 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3, is to reject his choice against Spassky of  3...g5, which he condemns as "inexact because it gives White drawing chances in the ensuing ending ... where Black's extra pawn is neutralised by White's stranglehold on the dark squares, especially f4."*

[The phrase "ensuing ending" is a little odd, considering his encounter with Spassky never reached the endgame - Fischer resigned with each player still possessing a queen, a pair of rooks and a minor piece.]

Instead of 3...g5, Fischer recommends 3...d6, which he awards an exclamation mark, calling it "a high-class 'waiting move'."

Today 3...d6 is second in popularity to 3...g5, but before 1961, the date of the article's publication, 3...d6 also trailed 3...d5, 3...Be7 and 3...Nf6.

Fischer regarded 4.Bc4 as White's proper response, reckoning 4.d4 transposes.

However, this is far from obvious, and in Winning With The King's Gambit (Batsford 1992), Joe Gallagher cites the latter move as "clearly the most critical," while conceding "the plan of Bc4 followed by d3 is also interesting."

Fischer recommended meeting 4.Bc4 with 4...h6, which, like 3...d6, he awarded an exclamation mark, calling it the Berlin Defence Deferred, although today it is more-or-less universally known as the Fischer Defence.

He did not mention Gallagher's suggested 5.d3, instead continuing 5.d4 g5 6.0-0 Bg7 7.c3, claiming the last move is "necessary to protect the d pawn."

Quite a few alternatives have been missed along the way, and it is not even clear 7.c3 is "necessary," eg Stockfish16 for a long time prefers 7.Nc3 and 7.h4, although it does eventually list 7.c3 among its top two moves, at least for a while (Komodo14.1, however, agrees with Fischer's choice).

Position after 7.c3

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****
Fischer then looks in some detail at 7...Nc6, citing authority for it being best, but adds in a note that he believes 7...Ne7 is best, annotating it with (!), adding "there is no reason why Black should not strive to castle kingside."

He continues with the sample line 8.g3 d5 (Fischer gives this an exclamation mark) 9.exd5 fxg3 10.hxg3 0-0 11.Qb3? Qd6 12.Kg2 Nf5 and "wins."

Unfortunately, as indicated, this analysis has a major flaw in it. The engines prefer, among other moves, 11.Nbd2, one point being 11...Qd6?! is now ineffective thanks to 12.Ne4.

Considering the article is so famous, it is short of detailed analysis. Rather, the sentiment behind it, and Fischer's eye for a catchy phrase, including the payoff: "Of course White can always play differently, in which case he merely loses differently," has helped keep it in the public eye.

*I have algebraicised the moves and quotes from the article.