Fischer v. Fine (1963)
This sparkling miniature between 20-year-old Bobby Fischer and 50-year-old Rueben Fine may have been only an offhand game, but it made enough of an impression on Fischer that he included it in his book, My 60 Memorable Games. And it’s easy to see why. Starting with an Evans Gambit and ending with a queen sacrifice, it evokes the dashing Romantic play of the 19th Century, executed with Fischer’s trademark precision. It’s also a game that contains memorable lessons about gambit play—both what to do and what not to do.
If you’ve done your homework, you’ve already gone through the game a few times and drafted a plain-language summary of what happened. (If you haven’t done that yet, do it before proceeding.)
Before we look at positions from the game, a quick reminder of what we’re trying to accomplish here. Chess is governed by principles—the Common Law of Chess—that have been discovered through master play and analysis. But as with learning the Common Law of . . . well . . . law, merely knowing the principles does not mean you understand them. A 1L torts student quickly learns that the elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages, but will then spend weeks studying instructive cases to learn the nuances of these elements and how they play out in real disputes.
Here, it’s easy to state the principles of successful gambit play: For a gambit to succeed, the player who offers it must use his compensation for the gambited material—some combination of initiative, faster development, and better piece mobility—to launch an attack before his opponent can mount an adequate defense. That attack must net some advantage worth more than the gambited material.
The principles of successful gambit defense are equally clear: Don’t let the gambiteer do that stuff. The defending side must act quickly to get his pieces out and get his king to safety. Along the way, he wants to frustrate his opponent’s attack and interfere with the harmonious placement of his pieces so that, when the dust settles, the gambiteer’s attack is worth less than the material he gave up to generate it.
The emphasis for both sides, in other words, is time—accomplishing your goals quickly, while trying to slow down your opponent in accomplishing his. As a result, careless play that allows one’s opponent to win time can be fatal.
So now let’s try to flesh out those general principles by seeing how they applied in a real game. Keep those ideas about time at the forefront of your mind as you consider the following positions. (As always, the game will be presented from the losing side’s perspective, in the hopes that vicariously experiencing the loser’s pain will make the lessons all the more memorable.)
Position 1:
Fischer has played the Evans Gambit. After sacrificing his b-pawn, he wins time against Fine’s bishop with c3. Fine responded with 5…Ba5, which is the mainline. Low-rated players often play 5…Bc5. High-rated players prefer either Fine’s move or 5…Be7. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each move? Why don’t strong players play 5…Bc5?
Position 2:
Chess coach JJ Lang recently tweeted that one of his default rules for life is, “When facing a gambit, always take the first pawn but never take the second.” Fine has already taken a second pawn, and Fischer, by not recapturing, is offering to let Fine keep it by playing dxc3. Should he?
What does Fischer get in exchange for letting Fine keep the second pawn?
What opportunities does Fine forgo in exchange for keeping it?
Would another move have been better?
Position 3:
In this position, Fine played 9…Nf6. Does this move lose time following 10. Nd5?
What are the positional consequences for Black following 9…Nf6, 10. Nd5 Nxd5?
Which piece is better placed: White’s knight on c3 or Black’s bishop on a5?
Suppose White had instead played 10. Bxc3. After 10…Qxc3, is the position of White’s queen better or worse than it was before?
Position 4:
Apart from the immediate threat to the knight on c6, what tactical threats must Black worry about in this position? Does Black have any other vulnerable points? What moves is White threatening to play that exploit those weaknesses?
Does White have any vulnerable points?
Has White’s gambit succeeded? Is he winning?
Position 5:
In this position, Black resigned. Why?
Next Steps
After you’ve thought through these questions, revisit your factual brief to see if there are material facts you omitted. Update it accordingly.
There’s no need to post all your answers (though you can if you want to). The primary value here is that you practice thinking rigorously about chess positions. But if there are particular answers you’re unsure about, definitely feel free to put them in the comments and we can try to figure it out.
Finally, if you learned something from this game (or two or three things) write it in the comments below!