[fsckboy]

but that says nothing about what Fisher was thinking, so while your opinion is valid, it's not more valid than the comment you replied to, especially when your comment mimics the structure of his comment in the way I pointed out.

[mlyle]

Fisher had said that he was seeking to complicate the game-- which is something that black wants to do, in general-- add uncertainty for both sides.

In practice, the move only added uncertainty for black. White faced easy choices, and black difficult ones.

I didn't disagree that Fisher thought the move was safe and miscalculated. Indeed, he didn't even miscalculate badly-- engines think they can hold the position.

I'm asserting that the move fails because it made the subsequent game more complicated for Fisher without imposing an equal penalty on his opponent. It made a bad miscalculation almost inevitable.

[dmurray]

> Fisher had said that he was seeking to complicate the game-- which is something that black wants to do, in general-- add uncertainty for both sides.

This is not something Black wants to do in matchplay chess in general. Usually he would be happy with a sterile draw and hope to take advantage of having an extra white in the remaining games.

Fischer, on the other hand, liked to play for a win in every game. And IIRC this match gave the defending champion draw odds, so the challenger had more incentive than normal to take risks, even in game 1.

Still, I generally agree with the analysis of Kasparov etc in this position. Fischer didn't miss the game continuation and he didn't assess the piece-down position as offering Black his share of winning chances. He more likely missed that after Bxh2 g3 h5 Ke2 h4 Kf3 h3 Kg4 Bg1 Kxh3 Bxf2 Bd2! White still traps the bishop.