Talk:World Chess Championship 1972

Iceland
And Iceland is willing to allow Bobby Fischer to come back? Well, they are welcome to him!*Kat*

This feels like it was ripped from a book. It just doesn't sound like a person wrote it for an encyclopedia, but for a chess book. I'm going to mark this as possible plagarism. CompIsMyRx 03:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of it. Maybe the tone is a little overenthusiastic, but as far as I can see it is not POV and definitely not plagiarized, which should be clear if you look at the history. I wish you would be a little more careful before throwing accusations around. Arvindn 04:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

draw by agreement
The article says "Endowed with a fierce fighting spirit and a hater of agreed draws, Fischer had campaigned against this practice. " Is that correct? Almost all of Fischer's draws were draws by agreement. Is what is meant: short or quick draws by agreement? Bubba73 (talk), 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It means draws agreed to when the game is not clearly logically drawn. That's the sense in which the term is usually used, because no one plays on when the game is dead drawn. Arvindn 06:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but did Fischer ever campaign against the practice? Not that I am aware of. Rocksong 09:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He did object to pre-arranged draws. The practice, when used by many Soviet grandmasters (between themselves) who played in tournaments in which Fischer also participated (usually the only American at this level), was putting him at a clear disadvantage (shorter rest periods or even a possibility to manipulate the final standings). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.238.235 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Name should be FIDE, not Classical
I notice this was renamed the other day. I believe this article should have been renamed FIDE World Chess Championship 1972 not Classical World Chess Championship 1972. The match was held under the auspices of FIDE. The term Classical is mainly used to differentiate from the FIDE championship. p.s. simply World Chess Championship 1972 would be OK too. Rocksong 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The naming needs to reflect the series of matches both for indexing purposes and to clarify the succession. I am sure that FIDE World Chess Championship 1972 is not right since the FIDE series of matches were a new series started after the schism and there is no continuity with the 1972 match. I chose Classical to demonstrate that there is a continuous lineage between the 1972 match and those of 2000 and 2004. If a further title change is needed then World Chess Championship 1972 would be possible but we would then have three series of titles. BlueValour 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think "classical" is really out of place here. World Chess Championship 1972 or World Chess Championship Match 1972 would be much better. The term "classical" is almost exclusively used for the champions and matches of recent years, when there were competing championships. (And if you really think there is "a continuous lineage between the 1972 match and those of 2000 and 2004", then perhaps you can annotate the Fischer-Karpov match for wikipedia.) 145.222.138.134 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BlueValour wrote "I am sure that FIDE World Chess Championship 1972 is not right since the FIDE series of matches were a new series started after the schism". With respect, you are wrong. FIDE has been organising world championship events since 1948; and was the only WC organised from 1948-1990. Still World Chess Championship 1972 is OK too. I have no problem with 3 series of titles, because they'd all be of the same format: X World Championship YYYY, where YYYY is the year, and X is either nothing (for 1886-1990), or Classical or FIDE from 1993 to 2006. Rocksong 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, the (informal) term "classical world championship" did not come into use until after the 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik match. Kasparov's matches against Short and Anand were the PCA world championship. To retroactively name the 1972 match the "classical" world championship is falsifying history. Skarioffszky 10:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Is that a consensus that we rename it to World Chess Championship 1972? Rocksong 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll go with that. Two points; the nominator will need to use the 'Request moves' procedure since this name has been used before and there will be a whole bunch of double redirects for the nominator to fix. BlueValour 03:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, I'm too busy for a few days. So either someone else do it, or wait a few days. Rocksong 05:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moved, per Requested moves. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion
Wasn't this match pretty significant outside of the chess world too? I don't know too much about this or I'd write about it myself, but didn't Soviet chess players pretty much dominate up until Fischer claimed the title through this match? Somebody should add a section about the "aftermath" and the cultural side effects of this match, to simply acknowledge that this match was significant in the psychological battle of the Cold War. —Lantoka ( talk 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. BlueValour 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

missing games
Agree that it's silly to discuss every game, but 10, 11, 18, and 21 probably deserve better treatment. Billbrock 08:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyvio?
This page is remarkably similar to. Was this page copied from that one or vice versa?

Is Arvind the same person who owns the copyright of www.bobby-fischer.net or did that guy copy from this website?

Alex.tan (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed this too. The section names are direct copy from that site, but I haven't reviewed yet how much more if any seems to be direct copy. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC) p.s. Five years and no response re this?!

dates!
When did the match start? Chvsanchez (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1972? doesn't it say in the article? 24.226.77.23 (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

✅. Bubba73 (talk), 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

B-class review
At the request of Bubba73, here is my assessment of the article (this version) against the criteria for B-class.
 * 1 "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary." One or two claims would benefit from a reference, but nothing problematic for B-class.
 * 2 "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." I think the article lacks several important sections and sub-sections. Obviously not everything of the following is required for B-class, but there are too many shortfalls for now. I would suggest the following sections:
 * 3 Short presentation of the players: I suggest a subsection on each player, with one paragraph on the general style and character of the player, and one paragraph more focused on the results of the player just before the match. This is satisfactorily done on Fischer, but there does not seem to be a presentation of Spassky.
 * 4 Context: the article could benefit from having a full subsection on the political context, including the various speeches of the USA and USSR before the match, the call from Kissinger to Fischer, etc.
 * 5 Aftermath: the article lacks a full section on the consequences of the match: Spassky being outcasted in USSR for being too kind, the surge of chess in the USA, the influence on openings (Benoni, ...).
 * 6 Influence: this would somehow interlace with "Aftermath" so probably something better needs to be thought of, but I would suggest the following subsections: influence on Fischer (writing a book, going on TV shows, ...), influence on Spassky, influence on the chess knowledge (openings, middlegame, endgames), influence on chessplayers (for example, was Kasparov's dynamic play encouraged by this match ?), influence on chess coverage and knowledge from the masses, ...
 * 7 "The article has a defined structure." Each of the following concern is not problematic enough to endanger B-class, but together they make me uneasy with the assessment:
 * 8 I would suggest to improve the Lead, as it does not cover the article appropriately. For example there is stuff in the article about the pre-match shenanigans that is not covered in the Lead. There is also the opposite, with claims that are in the Lead and not in the following sections, e.g. the claim about "Match of the century"
 * 9 I would also suggest to organise the "Background" section by theme, as explained hereabove.
 * 10 The hierarchy about qualifications is not introduced. Maybe a subsection would be appropriate, explaining that Spassky was already qualified, and giving short explanations on Fischer's brilliant results in the former rounds.
 * 11 "The article is reasonably well written."
 * 12 "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate."
 * 13 "The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way." A few sentences may be problematic for a non-chess reader, or even a reader knowing only the rules of chess and nothing else. A few examples from the non-chess-savvy reader:
 * 14 "The position appeared to be a dead-drawn ending". Me is stupid reader: me not understand ending drawn, because text after says game continues, so me understand game not draw, so why text says position is dead-draw ? (I mean, I understand what that means, but the casual reader could be confused that we say the game was a draw, while what we say is that the position looked like it would go into a draw after a few normal moves).
 * ✅ Bubba73 (talk), 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 15 "in light of the obvious 30.g3, trapping the bishop". OK the bishop is trapped, so what ?
 * ✅ Bubba73 (talk), 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 16 "Allowing White to shatter Black's kingside pawn structure looks antipositional, but Fischer's assessment that his kingside attack created significant counterplay was correct." What does antipositional mean ? What is a kingside attack (what is a kingside, by the way)? What is counterplay ?
 * ✅ Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 17 "Spassky gave up an exchange for little compensation". What is an exchange ? What is compensation ?
 * ✅ Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 18 "and stalemating his rook" What does this mean ?
 * ✅ Bubba73 (talk), 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So I think the article still needs some work to get to full B-class, especially regarding broadness and structure of the "Background" section. But please remember I am known for my harsh assessments :-) ! SyG (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Soviets told Spassky to claim match by forfeit?
The article says that after the ninth game, "At this point the Soviet establishment asked Spassky to return to Moscow and claim the match by default.[citation needed] At considerable risk, Spassky refused." Benko and Hochberg say something like this, although unfortunately they don't say at what point this occurred. They state, "At one point, after one of Fischer's delays, Spassky's superiors in Moscow ordered him to come home and claim the match by default. Spassky, at considerable risk, refused." Pal Benko and Burt Hochberg, Winning with Chess Psychology, p. 85. It is not apparent from the text of the article (or anything else I am aware of) what the basis for making such a claim after Game 9 (which Spassky, not Fischer, postponed because of illness) would be. Game 2 would make much more sense. Krakatoa (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember reading about this and I don't think it was that late in the match. No reference at hand, though. How could Spassky pull out after game 9 and have any chance of claiming victory? Bubba73 (talk), 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on all counts. I read something long ago (maybe in Larry Evans' column) about the Soviets wanting Spassky to claim a win on forfeit and Spassky refusing to do so. And yes, it would make no sense to do so after game nine, when Spassky was down 3.5-5.5 (and 1.5-5.5 in the last seven games). After game 2, when Spassky was ahead 2-0 and many were saying Fischer was afraid of Spassky, Spassky could plausibly have claimed a forfeit. He would have been ridiculed if he had tried it after game nine. Given that the statement makes no sense, and has been tagged as unsupported since August 2007, I'm taking it out. Krakatoa (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

First American world champion?!
According to the article, "Fischer became the first American to be the official World Champion (which started in 1886)." Although this belief is almost universally held, it's false. Wilhelm Steinitz emigrated to the U.S. in 1883 (before winning the World Championship in 1886) and became a U.S. citizen in 1888, Americanizing his name to "William Steinitz". He was World Champion until 1894. Steinitz thus was a resident of the United States during his entire tenure as World Champion, and a citizen of the U.S. for six of his eight years as World Champion. Krakatoa (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot about that. Should it say "American-born", or be deleted?  Bubba73 (talk), 16:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe "Fischer became the first American to be the official World Champion since the first Champion, Steinitz (who became a naturalized American citizen in 1888)." ? Krakatoa (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is better. Bubba73 (talk), 17:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I've changed it accordingly. Krakatoa (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Morphy was the 1st world champion byy match play. Rubn Fine won the world title when Keres was not allowed to continue in the tournament to replace Alekhine. America should not parrot the comunist fide propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.71.135 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Eanes Executive Chair
The caption under the photo talks about the Eanes Executive Chair. A photo from the second round (Edmonds and Eidinow, page 172) shows that Spassky did not yet have one. He must have gotten one sometime after game 2. Bubba73 (talk), 17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And did Spassky refuse to play until he got one too? Or did he just request one? Bubba73 (talk), 18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Roberts et al. (p. 86) just says, "Fischer would not use the chairs provided by the Icelandic Chess Federation. Instead, he would sit in a special chair flown in from New York-a duplicate of the chrome-and-leather swivel chair he used in his match in Buenos Aires against Petrosian." Someplace I read (35+ years ago) that when Spassky heard about this, he wanted one of the chairs, too. I doubt very much that he actually refused to play without it. Fischer, not Spassky, was the one issuing ultimatums like that. Krakatoa (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it isn't like Spassky to refuse to play because of something like that. I'll make a little change to the caption.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd note comparing the executive chairs to one used in the 1961 match is false!!! There are 2 people playing next to them,it can not be their world title game!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.71.135 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hübner's flag
In the discussion of the candidates' matches, the flag given for Wolfgang Uhlmannn is that of East Germany. The flag given for Robert Hübner is simply that of "Germany". Given that Germany was split in half at the time, shouldn't it be "West Germany"? Krakatoa (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it. Krakatoa (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Designation of game numbers
According to WP:MOS, "An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles". I think the article violates this by referring to game numbers in five different ways: "game 1" "game two" No designation at all [game 3] "the fourth game" "Game 7" "The 21st game"

Consistent with WP:MOS, I think we should adopt one convention and use it throughout the article. I suggest the terse "Game 1" (my second choice would be lower-case "game 1"), rather than lengthening a long article further with "the first game", "the second game", etc. Krakatoa (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that "game one" or "the first game" read better, but I'll go along with "Game 1" since they are labels for the games. Bubba73 (talk), 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've changed the game labels. Krakatoa (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

fact tag
This line: Spassky abandoned his prepared lines and attempted to outplay Fischer in lines that presumably neither of them had prepared, but this also proved fruitless for the defending champion. had a reference to an article by Gligoric Gligoric's book, but the reference was removed and replaced by a Fact tag. Was it that the reference did not say that? Bubba73 (talk), 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Gligoric says something similar to this in the last paragraph on page 116. Is that good enough for a reference? Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, IMO. I take it you are referring to this statement by Gligoric: "For some time, from the fourteenth game on, Fischer had little success in reaching an initiative. Spassky was imposing his choice of lines and the leader in the match could not find anything substantial against them." I don't know exactly what Gligoric meant; it is certainly plausible that by "his choice of lines" he was referring to opening lines. However, Gligoric's own book conclusively shows that Spassky in games 14-21 was not forcing Fischer into opening lines chosen by Spassky, but rather the opposite. Gligoric's book shows that in every game from 14 to the end Fischer took the game into a line not played before in the match (and often never played before by Fischer):

Game 14 (Gligoric p. 87) - Fischer plays 5.B-B4 "deviating from the two previous games" Game 15 (G p. 91) - With 7...B-K2! "Black [i.e. Fischer] is first to deviate" Game 16 (G p. 96) - Fischer plays 4.BxN, "Faithful to his tactics not to repeat the same line twice." Game 17 (G p. 102) - Fischer innovates on move 1 with 1...P-Q3!; "Fischer has never played like that before. According to his present tactics he does not use the same line twice in the match." Game 18 (G p. 107) - Fischer plays 6.B-KN5!, "The first Rauzer Attack in Fischer's career. Never repeat the same line was Fischer's rule in this match." Game 19 (G p. 113) - Fischer plays 4...B-N5!, pursuant to "Fischer's normal tactics, not repeating the same line twice." Game 20 (G p. 117) - Spassky's first 9 moves are identical to game 18. Fischer deviates with 10.B-K2, which "looks like a brand new move, but has been played before in a few games" Game 21 - (G. p. 120) "Fischer again disclosed an original idea of a great thinker" (G. p. 121) Fischer played 2...P-K3 ("Once again Fischer varies."), 7...P-Q4! ("Quite unexpected."), and 8...PxP! ("One more surprise. ... This new Black set-up must have been analyzed by Fischer beforehand.")

The statement in the text of our article is thus not merely unsupported, but demonstrably false. I think it should be removed. Krakatoa (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I didn't put that sentence in, nor the reference to Gligoric's book.  On the assumption that it is in the book somewhere, I briefly scanned the text to see if I could find it.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and remove the sentence then. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you'd written it. I went looking for support in the Gligoric book, too, but missed the sentence you found. Krakatoa (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my not so humble opinion it is often a mistake to try too hard to justify dubious, unsourced material added to articles by other people. Often as not, the claims are simply wrong and it isn't a good idea to stretch sources in an attempt to save incorrect statements.  Assume good faith, but don't assume that random editors you don't know know what they are writing about.  24.177.121.141 (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant that I didn't know where it came from because I didn't add it. If I had added it I would have had an idea of where to look. I tried to search for it - probably not a fruitful idea.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bxh2
The Bxh2 sacrifice in game 1 is here written off as a blunder - in fact there is a great deal of analysis on the subject and it is not clear what the final verdict is. The very least that could be mentioned is that there is some debate to whether or not the move is a mistake. Some people believe the decisive mistake only came later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.224.97 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

C-Class on quality scale seems inappropriate to me - it deserves a B
The article looks very good and has lots of references. I can't believe this should still be a C-Class article on the quality scale. I personally don't have time/inclination to get it reviewed, but I would think it is better than a C-class article. Drkirkby (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is thoroughly-referenced.  About all it might lack is some of the games aren't covered much.  But up to B-class can be done without a review, so I'll change it.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Amen to that. Krakatoa (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose including remaining game scores
Only 3 of the 21 games have game scores, I think the remaining 18 should be incorporated as well due to importance of "Match of the Century". (Same as how all game scores are incorporated in match articles Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov, World Chess Championship 2008, World Chess Championship 2010, World Chess Championship 2012, etc.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite agree. Commonly done for big matches. I'd suggest however that the World Chess Championship 1886 format is better than the World Chess Championship 2012. Have a look; seems far less wasteful on space and excessive scrolling for the reader. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos
Such a celebrated match, but no photographs are illustrating this article? Pity. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Big match = Big money = Big copyright control on all photos, no doubt! Such a shame that "money makes the world go around..." etc. But Fischer was notoriously opposed to being filmed at all during the match (constantly citing camera noise, even from scientifically proven quiet movie cameras) and thus only one of the 21 matches was filmed (surrepticiously) and any still photos of them playing or posing together are very rare - probably just a few copyrighted Associated Press pix. It's a pity the late, great Fischer was such a "difficult" person. Game of the Century? Shame of the Century, too! Pete Hobbs (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on World Chess Championship 1972. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130727110509/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com:80/vault/article/magazine/MAG1074080 to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1074080/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The external link to "Brief comments by Bobby Fischer on the upcoming 1972 - Match Video Clip" appears to be a dead link. I got a "Can't reach this page" error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.226.53 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on World Chess Championship 1972. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050411204341/http://www.chlodwig.com:80/Fischer/Fi_Story.htm to http://www.chlodwig.com/Fischer/Fi_Story.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent Spassky Interview...
...at this link: https://www.chess.com/blog/Spektrowski/boris-spassky-2016-interview, with some interesting remarks concerning the WC match 1972. May be a chess expert can incorporate some of it in the WP-article? --Herbmuell (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on World Chess Championship 1972. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126000035/http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html to http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520040049/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8110762384845644778&q=fisher+spassky&total=63&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8110762384845644778&q=fisher+spassky&total=63&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on World Chess Championship 1972. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150902042455/http://bobbyfischer.net/bobby07.html to http://bobbyfischer.net/bobby07.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150902042455/http://bobbyfischer.net/bobby07.html to http://bobbyfischer.net/bobby07.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327010649/http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_video_6.htm to http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_video_6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World Chess Championship 1972. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704055014/http://www.chessmuseum.org/bio_steinitz_popup.htm to http://www.chessmuseum.org/bio_steinitz_popup.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Detail of Petrosian-Hubner qualification match
OK it wasn't health reasons that Hubner withdrew, it was a protest against noise levels which the organizers did nothing about. This chessgames.com page is uncharacteristically well sourced. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=84954 Wikipedia really needs to write this stuff up, probably in separate articles about the interzonal and candidates stages. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath section modified
The sentence: "But the games in this match proved to be his last public competitive games for several decades."

Has been edited to read: "But the games in this match proved to be his last public competitive games for two decades."

Reason: The Fischer-Spassky rematch was in 1992 (20 years after the original match), and the word "several" implies more than two.

(Sorry if I'm not doing this correctly, I don't often edit Wikipedia.)

Please Clarify Your Chart
Could the original editor or somebody clarify the undefined chart on the games. In the article it starts like this:


 * 4.2.1 Game 1: Spassky–Fischer, 1–0 (Nimzo-Indian)
 * 4.2.2 Game 2: Fischer forfeits
 * 4.2.3 Game 3: Spassky–Fischer, 0–1 (Modern Benoni)
 * 4.2.4 Game 4: Fischer–Spassky, ½–½ (Sicilian Sozin)
 * 4.2.5 Game 5: Spassky–Fischer, 0–1 (Nimzo-Indian)
 * 4.2.6 Game 6: Fischer–Spassky, 1–0 (QGD Tartakower)
 * 4.2.7 Game 7: Spassky–Fischer, ½–½ (Sicilian Najdorf)
 * 4.2.8 Game 8: Fischer–Spassky, 1–0 (English Symmetrical)

1) What does the order of names mean, like Spassky first, then -Fischer ? Does it mean that Spassky won or Spassky had white? Please explain.

2) Then what do 1-0 & 0-1 mean? Does the order follow that of the player order? So if it is Spassky-Fischer, then the first number is Spassky's number & the 2nd is Fischer's number (1 = won, 0 = lost)? (PeacePeace (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC))
 * In typical chess notation, the first-named player played White. 1-0 means White won, 0-1 means Black won. So e.g. in game 5, Spassky was White, and lost. Banedon (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Interviews with Karpov
User:The Gnome: A story has been added to the discussion of game 13, based on two interviews with Karpov, about Karpov's activity as a (remote) spectator of the match. This does not look like very reliable sourcing -- Karpov talking about what Karpov accomplished. Also, they give no technical details, such as what position or what stage of the game was being discussed. Is there a better source for this incident? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Bruce leverett. The information and the sources were added by me. So far, I cannot find something beyond what I already cited. Of course, I made sure to denote Karpov's claim precisely as such, i.e. a claim (by a former World Champion, none the less), which I consider quite notable on its own. The search goes on. -The Gnome (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I checked through a few books (Anatoly Karpov - Chess is My Life; Russians versus Fischer; Karov on Karpov; Viktor Korchnoi - Chess is My Life in case it contained something from when they were together in Dubna, in 1972) and found nothing. I suppose we can only allow this as a Karpov claim, pure and simple. -The Gnome (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the additional research. But the outcome is, this doesn't look substantial enough to belong in the article.  Autobiographical material is discouraged by WP:RS.  If Karpov were presenting chess analysis that improved upon the literature, that would be interesting, but he's not presenting any analysis, he's just telling a fireside story about his young adulthood.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bruce leverett, if Karpov gave lines, those need to be included; without them the added text seems irrelevant. Banedon (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This dude abides. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Fischer-Spassky1972.jpg
This image was recently added. Looking at the Summary, it is "Own work" and the author is Blockhouse321. It is a work of art dated 1972 and signed by (pardon if I am not reading the letters correctly) "Sig k Arnason". Is Blockhouse321 the person who signed this work and/or the person who holds rights to it? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bruce leverett, the painting is hanging at the Bobby Fischer Center in Iceland. I took the picture when I was there a year ago. Many tourists frequent the BFC and many pictures are taken of the painting by people. Thank you. Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The topic/articles edited overlap strongly suggests that this is the banned editor User:IQ125. The picture, a contemporary sketch by a local artist, appears to have been taken from Twitter (https://twitter.com/jimnorton/status/902198170008027138), does not in my opinion add anything much to the article, and is probably not authorised by the copyright owner for use on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems that the editor MaxBrowne has come out of retirement and cloned himself into MaxBrowne2 Blockhouse321 (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I will remove the links to this photo from here and from Bobby Fischer. I suppose there should be an inquiry at Deletion requests also.  Bruce leverett (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The Twitter link posted by MaxBrowne2 worked a few hours ago, but doesn't now, so I guess the person in charge of that Twitter account took down that tweet. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC) *** As of now, the Twitter link works fine, so perhaps the tweet was never taken down, it was just a network glitch.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The artist is Sigurður Kristján Árnason (1925-2017). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have posted an inquiry to Media copyright questions. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

why iceland?
I wish the article had mentioned why in the world the match was played in Iceland. 2602:306:BC65:4279:18EA:CD42:6407:BC21 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Bxh2 is NOT A BLUNDER!
Bxh2 was not a blunder, it was the best move. A further move was the cause of the loss. Ke4, f5, and f4 are big blunders. 209.141.181.116 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)