Like Everything Else, Chess is Fixed
by Miles Mathis
First published December 21, 2017
As I have said before, I don’t play chess, although I know how. Why? Because I consider it the biggest waste of mental energy ever invented. I always suspected it was rigged at the top levels, but until today I didn’t know for sure. I simply didn’t want to waste time researching the question. But for some reason I snapped today: I got tired of hearing about Bobby Fischer and decided to study some of his big wins. It didn’t take long to discover that his opponents were taking a dive. It was so obvious I can’t believe I am the first to say it. I researched the question and found no one else saying these games were rigged. But I guess I should have expected that. I seem to be the only one blowing the cover of many other things, including the Lincoln Assassination, the Salem Trials, Custer’s Last Stand, Hitler, Mussolini, and dozens of other events. So why be surprised I am the only one outing Bobby Fischer?
I am going to be uncharacteristically brief here, because, again, chess is not only not worth playing, it is not worth thinking about. It is only worth outing as another fraud. I am going to analyze four games, and you can follow along at Youtube. The first is his famous game at age thirteen against Donald Byrne (above). Byrne starts out very strong while Fischer starts out very weak on black, and I now think this is to disguise the throw of the game by Byrne coming up. This game has been called a brilliancy, but since Byrne set Fischer up for it, it lacks something of brilliance in my eyes. The throw starts at 6:20 when Byrne conspicuously wastes a move with his queen, proceeding to C5 though this threatens black not at all. Byrne’s next move is even worse, moving his bishop to G5 even thoughFischer just began his attack on Byrne’s king side with his own bishop. Byrne not only mysteriously fails to castle, he fails to accomplish anything with that bishop. So not only is the move wasted, it precludes several other far better moves. You will say everyone makes mistakes, but these are beginner mistakes. It is not really credible that an international master would be throwing away big moves at the most critical juncture of a game like this. Not only has he failed to castle, he has allowed his three pawns to get locked in there, so that if he does castle, his king won’t be able to move. So not only is bishop to G5 a bad move, it is a horrible move, one that can’t really be explained in hindsight.
We are then told that Bobby Fischer’s next move was one of the greatest in the history of chess, but I’m not buying that. The youtube guy Kevin tells us to pause the game and see if we can predict what Fischer did next, as if it is pure genius. I did predict it, but I don’t think it was pure genius. As I have said, I haven’t studied chess, but even I saw it immediately. Byrne’s king is out in the breeze, and if Fischer can attack quickly via E4, Byrne is in big trouble. The only piece Byrne has protecting E4 is his knight, so Fischer naturally needs to attack that knight. With his knight, Fischer can attack Bryne’s knight and queen at the same time, so it is a pretty obvious move at that point. In fact, it is so obvious that Byrne can’t even take Fischer’s offered knight, refusing to do so. Instead, he moves his queen out of the way. But this move is just as stupid, since he moves her to A3. That is totally unnecessary since the pawn at B2 is already covering C3. Since by refusing to take the knight, Bryne is giving up his own knight, he knows he is going to lose his coverage of the pawn at E4. So he should be trying to cover that pawn with his queen. He can’t possibly do that from A3, even in two moves. We are told he is at A3 to menace Fischer’s pawn at E7, but he shouldn’t be trying to play offense at this point. He is seeking the best defense with his queen, not the best offense. So A3 is another horrible move. He ends up getting his queen blocked by his own pawn, and he should have seen that coming since it was only one move ahead.
Fischer now takes the pawn in the center with his knight, and Byrne makes his fourth bonehead move in a row. Although the move of the knight gives Fischer two pieces pointing at Byrne’s pawn at D4,including his queen, Byrne still refuses to play any defense, instead continuing his attack on E7. This attack is futile, since it is against a mobile queen instead of against the king. It simply allows Fischer to throw his queen into a new and better attacking position. But the back row is still as defended as it was before, since moving the queen frees up both rooks. Even more amazing is that Byrne is still refusing to move his bound bishop or castle his king. Because of those four awful moves, he is already beaten, as we will see.
But he isn’t finished with his stupidity, since he now makes a fifth awful move, finally freeing that bishop but moving him too far. He again tries to be offensive when he should be playing defense. He moves the bishop to C4, where it poorly menaces F7 but is in no position to play defense. It is another wasted move. The next move is even worse, and is the sixth horrible move in a row from a supposed master of chess. Rather than finally castling his king, he moves his bishop back to menace and blockFischer’s queen. This is both poor offense and poor defense, since it allows his king to be immediately put in check. Byrne therefore has to move his king back, wasting another move. That makes seven in a row.
Of course the next moves are the most famous, and Byrne now goes from idiot to moron. Fischer moves his bishop backwards to put it on Byrne’s bishop. Although that bishop is on C4, inline with Byrne’s king, we are supposed to believe Byrne didn’t see that. So rather than play defense, Byrne again tries offense, taking Fischer’s queen. Unbelievable. He learned nothing from seven bad moves in a row, and we are led to think he is still underestimating the young Fischer. But are we supposed to believe Byrne had never played defense from white before? I guess we are supposed to believe he won every match in his life, and never had to play defense. He never noticed that his queen was lost on the sidelines, being completely out of play defensively for eight moves?
Yes, Fischer played a nice game, especially for a youth, but let’s face it, Byrne made it easy on him. It isn’t that hard to beat someone who makes bad move after bad move. From minute 6:20 Byrne never made a good move, and except for the late queen sacrifice by Fischer, it isn’t like Fischer was really tricking or pressing him. In the middle of the game, Byrne was making his own mistakes, with little pressure from Fischer.
OK, let’s move on to an even more famous game, Fischer v. Spassky, game 10. Spassky, playing black, plays well until minute 4:26 in the video, when he moves his queen to E5. At that point he seems to have a better board than Fischer. But then Spassky’s game begins to fall apart. When his queen is menaced by Fischer’s bishop, he moves her to F4, a move with no backup. After an exchange, Spassky makes another stupid error, moving his rook from E8 to D8. This is a wasted move, because we see he has allowed his king to get boxed in. Moving the rook won’t fix that. F7 is now vulnerable, but Spassky pretends not to see that, instead attacking weakly with his queen to achieve a worthless pawn.
But the worst move is yet to come. When Fischer attacks F7 with his bishop, Spassky fails to block with his pawn at C4, instead covering F7 with his rook. This is where he threw the game. No grand master would have failed to block that bishop. The youtube guy Kevin misdirects his audience here, saying the rook move was just as good, but that is a lie. As we can see in the event, it was a terrible move. Notice that Spassky fails to block even after Fischer moves his queen to menace F7 as well. So no one can claim Spassky failed to recognize the menace to F7. Until he puts his rook in line with F7, Spassky has no pieces defending that square at all, which is beyond belief. Even his queen is completely out of the action, pretending to menace a rook on E1. But since that rook is protected by the other rook, that menace is empty. The queen is completely out of the action and arrives too late to defend F7. Besides, it cannot be argued Spassky didn’t see what Fischer was up to. Spassky takes the pawn at E5 in preparation for the block at C4, so he had to see the threat and the block. So there is no excuse for his failure to block. Plus, leaving the black pawn at C5 just guarantees his bishop at F8 can’t get involved in anything that might happen in that part of the board. That black pawn nullifies any possible participation by that bishop in any upcoming action. Very suspicious. To see what I mean, Spassky’s offense was lining up against E1, so his queen will need the support of that bishop. But leaving the pawn on C5 blocks that, so not moving that pawn is doubly strange.
But if we go back, the whole black attack of Spassky starting from the queen move to C3 at 6:20 makes no sense. If Spassky’s back board had been strong, with all pieces in play, that might have been clever,but both his first rook and bishop are blocked and out of play. His b-row bishop is also basically out of play on that side of the board, so once he locks his queen in on the side board behind those pawns, Fischer knows he is a goner. Spassky can’t respond to an attack from that side. Even the proper pawn block at C4 would have been difficult to follow up on, since Spassky’s entire board is a mess. All his pieces are out of play. Even his rook at D8 is misplaced, since it is sitting on an empty row, menacing and defending absolutely nothing.
Spassky is already beaten at that point, since Fischer then attacks F7 with three pieces, and his rooks are also well-placed. After the exchange Fischer is down a pawn but still has two rooks, while Spassky only has a rook and bishop. So Spassky can only win if Fischer makes a bad error in the play out, which he doesn’t. Given the disarray of Spassky’s board at 6:20, Fischer should have been able to achieve an even greater advantage before the play out, but apparently he was satisfied being up a rook to a bishop. And since the game looks faked to start with, he had nothing to fear in the play out, did he?
As I said, it is beyond belief that Spassky wouldn’t spot or defend a threat to F7. Spassky was playing black and was known for his defense. Any midlevel player would be looking for threats to F7, especially with a king blocked in back there, so the fact that Fischer was so easily able to line up three pieces including his queen on that square is not believable. It is also not believable that Spassky would allow his black-square bishop to sit there completely useless the entire game. If we reverse the game, we actually see him backing the bishop into that square after taking it out to E7. He did that to allow the rook full access in E, but as soon as he moved his queen up to E5, he should have gotten that bishop out of there, taking it to, say, E6. If he had, Fischer could never have lined up three pieces on F7 to start with. Only that bound bishop could allow something like that. So it looks like he did that on purpose, and is another way he threw the game.
All grandmasters are masters of defense. You don’t get to that level attacking wildly in front of weak boards, do you? So I encourage you to study Spassky’s back board at 6:20 and ask yourself if it is really credible. If you were playing Bobby Fischer in the match of the century, would you attack wildly with your queen while a rook and a bishop were completely out of play in the back row?
Now let us look at game six of the same series. We will start at minute 4:10, when Spassky blocks a bishop attack that isn’t really menacing anything, with his pawn at A6. Kevin points out how curious this is, since Geller was one of Spassky’s seconds and had defended this attack recently with queen to B7. The next strange move is with that queen at 5:52. He moves her back one row, but that achieves nothing. He then moves her forward to the same spot three moves later. So he has just wasted two moves at the most important juncture of the game. This turns out to be decisive.
By moving that queen back and forth, Spassky has failed to set up his board—which becomes really obvious about minute 8:00. Fischer has already locked in Spassky’s remaining knight, and that could have easily been avoided if Spassky had got it out earlier. In addition, Spassky’s queen is still out of the action, which is not really understandable, seeing that he has moved her twice for no reason. And while Fischer’s rooks are on the proper rows, Spassky’s are again misplaced. One of them is menacing a pawn at B2, but Fischer is utterly ignoring it for the moment, since Fischer can already see his own attack is far more progressed. Spassky will have to respond to him, and won’t have time to attack that pawn with any real result.
Please go to Miles Mathis to read the entire essay.
CHESS ORIGINAL CONCEPT ALBUM COMPLETE