Fischer—Spassky 1972

These two radio interviews. conducted by Svetozar Gligorić, one of the greatest, yet underappreciated players in history, were transcribed by the staff of Iceland's "Skak" magazine.
[Gligorić also authored "Fischer Vs. Spassky: World Chess Championship Match, 1972."]


FISCHER

Gligoric: I wish to congratulate you, Bobby, very sincerely on your success. You have opened a new chapter in the history of chess. Just this morning the president of FIDE, Dr. Max Euwe, expressed the opinion that you are the best player he ever met in his life—and I am of the same opinion. This was my first opportunity to watch your play closely, because I had previously always been involved with my own play too during competition. But this was the first time I watched you playing and could notice every detail in your play, and I was really amazed at how strong you were. That is my sincere opinion. I would like to ask the first question: Are you pleased with the match and how it all went?

Fischer: I'd first of all like to thank you for your comments. I'm pleased with the outcome; yes, pleased.

Gligoric: Are you pleased with your play, I mean?

Fischer: Yes, I'm pretty pleased, I mean, under the circumstances ... considering all the pressure I was under and everything.

Gligoric: I am glad that Spassky gave some resistance in the second half of the match. How did you accept it?

Fischer: He played very well in the second half. I really felt under pressure in the last games, except in the last game I felt good. But for about six or seven games in a row I was under pressure every game, it was terrible.

Gligoric: That's true. As I wrote, it was a terrible change, but I think it was normal because I thought you had put such a lot of energy into the first half. I mean, you somehow had to exhaust your weapons for a while. And then the 21st game was a miracle to me because of the way you handled the opening. I liked it very much indeed; it was something quite new.

Fischer: Well, not so new to tell you the truth. I found the idea . . I was looking in Anderssen's book [Herman von Gottchall's book "Adolf Anderssen, Altmeister deutscher Schachspielkunst" -Leipzig, 1912. -batgirl] you know. It's the way they used to play the pawns, too. in the old days, with pawn to Queen four. They used to play this Bishop to King three and Bishop to Queen three ...

Gligoric: I see ...

Fischer: I saw it in many games, this isolated pawn. It's nothing ...

Gligoric: I realized it immediately when I saw the position on the board. I want to ask you: Do you know that as World Champion you are a member of the FIDE Central Committee?

Fischer: Oh, is that right? I haven't thought about it.

Gligoric: Yes, you are a member of the Central Committee now. Will you have any suggestions for the future system of world championship competition, do you know?

Fischer: I don't know. I really shouldn't say anything too definitely, you know, because I'll keep my options. I want to play a lot of chess and I like to play matches. I want to play a lot of matches, you know; the money is there. It's a question of money, not a question of waiting three years—it's a long time, a very long time.

Gligoric: May I confirm the opinion you expressed before: would you have another match with Spassky?

Fischer: Definitely, yes. Definitely if the money is there, we are going to have a return match, there's no question .

Gligoric: Can I ask him about what he thinks?

Fischer: You can ask him, yes. You know, the Russians made me wait a very long time; you know, dishonestly and everything. But I don't intend to do the same thing. But it's not a personal thing thing between me and the Russian players. I like them—it's a question, you know, with the Russian government. It wasn't the players really, they had no choice.

Gligoric: I understand.

Fischer: So I'm not against them ...

Gligoric: What are your next plans? Have you decided what you are going to do with the Olympiad and maybe some other competitions?

Fischer: I don't know. I'm interested in playing. I'm not very tired, to tell you the truth, but I thought I'd be tired.

Gligoric: You don't look tired.

Fischer: I feel bored, I want to get into action.

Gligoric: Do you know anything about the Olympiad and the players in it?

Fischer: I don't know, I have to talk with somebody. I haven't heard anything.

Gligoric: I see. And will you play any other tournament after the Olympiad later on?

Fischer: I don't know. I haven't accepted anything.

Gligoric: And will you accept any new offers in the United States, I mean, to appear in public? There were some doubts.

Fischer: No, I want to play. I'm not interested in making some kind of spectacle of myself. I'm interested in serious chess, you know.



SPASSKY

Gligoric: I would like to offer you my congratulations for the tremendous fighting spirit you showed during this difficult championship, and also for your contributions to the furtherance of chess in this championship. I would like to ask you: Are you satisfied with your play in the match?

Spassky: In some ways I am happy with my play during the championship, but at the same time much more unhappy. But still I find it difficult to explain why I am happy or unhappy. I feel that my head will be much clearer when some time has passed. I can't say how much time, because according to my earlier experiences a world championship takes more than a year off a man's life. If I am to speak to any extent of myself, how I felt while the contest was in progress, especially during the second half when I still felt that I would be able to play for a victory (I was convinced right up to the 21st game that I had a real chance of saving the situation)—then I would say that I always had the impression that I lacked both nerves and energy, that I wasted them terribly stupidly sometime earlier. This thought stayed with me—it was some kind of idea fixe. Often during the last eight games I felt that it was within my grasp and could not escape. I thought of it like a big fish, but I could not contain it. The fish was slippery and so I lost it. Then my psychological suffering began again. I had to start everything again. I lost it a second time and then a third, and again I had to begin at the beginning. Thus it went until the 21st game where I accepted a little danger: I saw a chance for victory and chose that continuation. And when it slipped from my grasp in the 21st game. when I thought I had an advantage and that I would win the adjourned game, then I thought that I had done everything it was possible to do and that I had no right to chance providence any longer. I resigned. I pulled and pulled all the time, but I needed strength. That, basically. is what I feel at the end of the championship.

Gligoric: Another question: What do you think of Fischer's play during the contest?

Spassky: If I were to begin on the positive side of Fischer's play, which I liked, then I would say this: as far as ability is concerned, especially move-technique, not those abilities to win by pressure, then he is very economical. In the championship—and I have a lot of experience with the championship—this is a very important aspect. When I have seen two birds on a roof, as they say, I have always chosen the little one in my hand. He was very economical—he solved no great problems of the world, he just played. If he saw a good or even an average move on the board, he played it right away and—finish.

Gligoric: He is pragmatic.

Spassky: Yes, pragmatic. I have not seen any creative chess from him. On the other hand, I find much of value in the contest. He has health and energy in chess. He contains a tremendous chess-energy and a burning desire to win each time. Before the championship I expected that his victory-wish would sometimes work against him, in even positions or even when he had a slight advantage. thought he didn't understand that it's not always possible to win a slightly better position, and that he would go over the mark. But I had the misfortune to win the first game, and right away he was cautious of positions like this. When he had a slightly better position, he didn't think so much about the endgame; rather he thought about ways to end the middle game, to grip the result there, in the middle game. If I am to repeat his special features that I like best, they are: move-technique, economy, pragmaticism, energy and fighting spirit. I am convinced that he is an extraordinary chess player in all ways. As a player myself, that makes me happy. He has had, and still has, his weaknesses, but I don't want to speak of them at present because I am thinking of using them later. But briefly, one could say perhaps that his main weakness lies in the fact that he is straightforward in his chess, like a child. Well, it is one of his strengths, but at the same time a weakness, in a way, if the battle is more confined. He will have to get used to more alternatives, more sensitive alternatives and he will have to know more. And it is another weakness that he is still imperfect. To my knowledge, there are many players who are better than he is in perpetual check. He counts on each game as a possible victory and plays accordingly. But often it is the position that forces the move. Those are what I feel are his features. Perhaps I am wrong. I don't want to force my views.

Gligoric: You said you didn't want to explain his weaker points. I understand that well, but I would like to add that when I spoke to Bobby yesterday, he said he looked forward to playing another contest against you and gave me the right to ask you whether you would be prepared to play in such a contest,

Spassky: Yes. Firstly, I want to offer my thanks. It's a great pleasure for me to hear that, now that the championship is over and Bobby is the World Champion.
That is certainly very friendly. I can answer that I am ready at any time to take part in a contest against him with the utmost pleasure. I like him a lot as a chess player and as an opponent. I am also sure that the next contest will be much more difficult for him than this one. But I repeat that I will with the utmost pleasure play another championship with him.

Gligoric: I have something to say about that: Dr. Euwe has mentioned that the more one plays chess the better, and he feels that such a contest would be very important. There was one more question I wanted to ask you: What about yourself and the Olympiad at Skopje—will you be there?

Spassky: My problem is that I am so tired after the championship. Not so much now, but I know that it is like the end of a war. After about a month one is open to sickness and the nerves fail. I would very much enjoy taking part, but I don't know how I'm going to feel these next few weeks. That's the problem.

Gligoric: May I ask you to say a few words to the radio audience in Yugoslavia?

Spassky: Certainly. I will first and foremost thank my supporters. I received a great number of letters and telegrams from Yugoslavia. I want to thank them for the great interest and ever-present support my well-wishers sent me. I think I will take the first opportunity I can to play in a tournament in Yugoslavia. If I can do anything for chess in that country, then I am ready.

Gligoric: Many thanks. I know that you are the most welcome visitor to Yugoslavia now.

Spassky: Thank you for your kind words. The public is usually so friendly to the vanquished. But I believe that is especially true of the Slavs.

Gligoric: I feel this will be remembered as a great contest and will be of great assistance to the furtherance of chess, both in itself and from the viewpoint of publicity.

Spassky: Thanks. I also feel that such a contest can be an assistance to the sport of chess. Chess will have to win millions of new followers and arouse attention among the public, organizers, and last but not least, governments.

Gligoric: Finally, I would like to point out that your behavior in the championship has received great recognition all over the world, not least in Yugoslavia.

Spassky: My best thanks. One keeps hearing warm words.





The following interview with Gudmundur G. Thórarinsson, president of the Icelandic Chess Federation as well as one of the negotiators/organizers in the Fischer-Spassky match, was conducted by the editor of "Skak," Jóhann Thórir Jónsson.

Gudmundur Thórarinsson and Jóhann Jónsson in1972

Thórarinsson

Jonsson: What really happened when Fischer did not arrive at the correct time? Was it because of the management, or was he obstinate?

Thorarinsson: It is terribly difficult to understand what actually happened, and many people are of the opinion that Fischer had even decided against playing. He believed that the world regarded him as the real world champion and thus he did not need to play. Another point in connection with this question, or the FIDE rules: How many games must a player lose by forfeit before he loses the championship? Dr. Euwe later decided in this championship that if one of the competitors lost three games by forfeit then he lost the match. It could have been that Fischer thought that even if he lost the first game he could still arrive later to play, and I feel that because Fischer did not arrive at the right time there is real confusion in various arrangements.

Jonsson: Was the championship not legally finished when Fischer finally arrived?

Thorarinsson: I am not sure about that. Dr. Euwe made the decision to postpone the championship for two days, and I do not think there is anything in the FIDE rules to prevent the FIDE President from taking such decisions.

Jonsson: What about FDA's rules regarding future World Championship matches? Will they not have to be investigated thoroughly?

Thorarinsson: Yes, it is very apparent that there are a great number of matters which require investigation. Because of this I feel that the Icelanders have a lot to suggest at the next FIDE congress in Skopje this autumn. There are countless difficulties that have arisen here and which no one knew how to solve according to the rules, as, for instance, when the opening ceremony was held in the National Theater. The most important point about the opening ceremony was really that no point is made in FIDE rules when the contest starts: at the opening ceremony, at the drawing of lots for the first move, or whether it starts in the first game when the clock is set in motion. FIDE rules are completely unclear on this point. Technically seen, there are a number of issues which FIDE will have to investigate fully in the future. One can select matters such as lighting, and especially lighting above the chess board itself. It is matters such as these which are lacking in clarity. Everyone knows that when the Icelandic Chess Federation started its preparations for the championship, it tried very hard to collect information on the equipment that had been used in earlier contests. It came to light that such arrangements had been made specifically for each match and therefore nothing of value could be found. Everything concerned with this championship was worked out by specialists, so Iceland can offer exact data on all the main aspects, i.e., diagrams of the lighting as it was over the stage, and calculations of the light generated, slides of the setting up and how it looked at the finish, diagrams of the spectrum, and all kinds of color combinations that were used. The question arises whether the International Chess Federation should adopt standards for this in the future. Another thing that we worked on a lot here, and which could be an endless problem for those who organize chess matches, is for instance the contrast between the white and black squares on the chess board, which can vary, and once an answer has been found to the problem of contrast—which we did by commissioning a number of different boards—then there is the difference in color between the pieces themselves and the squares upon which they stand; and then arises the problem of how high the board should be, the distance between the spectators and the competitors, and other similar questions. These are all points that FIDE will have to think better about in the future.

Jonsson: The championship started, but various disputes then became matters of the greatest concern to the organizers. Many people are interested in learning what Chester Fox really wanted. In relation to the price of his photographs, it cannot be that he was in doubt over his profit. And what about the coerced contract that the Icelandic Chess Federation had with him?

Thorarinsson: The contract with Chester Fox  [Chester Fox was the American independent producer who owned the filming rights and sued Fischer for $1,750,000 during the match itself for upsetting his arrangements. -batgirl] is of course a chapter in itself. Before he came here he had already contracted abroad—as for instance with United Press International. One of Fox's main problems was to distribute his films on the world market, and at the same time have them developed and copied as fast as possible. In order to arrange this, he made an agreement with UPI for development and distribution. He paid a fantastically high price for this—not only a steady fee, but his agreement included paying them 15% of all his income. In addition, Fox made a separate agreement with Fischer —which we did not discover until afterwards—where he was to pay Fischer about 15% as well. His legal costs are also tremendously high. I believe I am right in saying that he paid his lawyers $150 per hour. And as they followed each step he took, these expenses are unbelievably high. In one way or another, he has managed to handle matters so that his costs are extremely high. One might mention that he paid a member of his film crew here about $450 a week, just in salary. We know that he lived in an expensive apartment. He hired all his equipment from UPI and paid them the equivalent of 30% of the price of new equipment. In addition, he did not manage to film more than two of the games apart from the video recordings he made and for which we do not know the value. When you mentioned the contract of coercion between the Chess Federation and him, I do not know if we are ready to accept that wording. It is difficult to see exactly what income the Federation will lose because of its sale of film rights.
The agreement with Fox was in two parts: filming on the one hand, and still photographs on the other. The Icelandic Chess Federation sold its right only as far as film profit was concerned, and the contract on still photography is still in force. Film production has shown a loss so far but the sale of stills has shown a profit. It is terribly difficult to say how much the Federation has lost by this action, but we are disappointed that our efforts to increase the competitors' income by offering them a share in television profits, and to increase chess prestige with films of this great championship, should have the effect of splintering the championship itself. We decided to sell all our rights to film profits to Chester Fox in order to reach an agreement, rather than to allow the championship to fall into disrepute. We never thought of the chess championship as a money-making event, rather we entered it because of the event itself. This decision of ours appears to have been well received all over the world.

Jonsson: Many well-known foreign parties have stated their wonder at your patience and have said that no one else could have safely managed such a match. What is the secret of this superhuman singleness of purpose throughout the exchange of heated words?

Thorarinsson: Those are big words . . . but it is the opinion of many that in nations lying further to the south, where men have more excitable natures, the championship would have failed. Perhaps in certain ways it would be possible to look to the mood of Icelanders to understand why we managed to run the match. Grandmaster Lombardy asked me once why Icelanders were so easy-going, whether the reason lay in "skyr" [an Icelandic dairy product which Fischer liked]. But I have often stated my belief that the environment formed man's temperament, their ancestors, views ... as is evident in all Icelandic sagas. In connection with this, a story comes to mind. At one time a foreign newspaperman asked me what we were going to do now that more difficulties had arisen. Fischer did not turn up for the second game, and the future was very uncertain in all ways. He said: "These difficulties that confront you are endless, they roll over you like one wave after another. What are you going to do now?" And I answered: "We Icelanders live out in the middle of the ocean. There are many waves on the ocean. We have never tried to flatten the sea, but take each wave as it comes."

Jonsson: Now that the championship is over, what would you say about it? And what about the attitude of the Icelandic authorities in connection with that great event?

Thorarinsson: Without a doubt I can say that their attitude has been very positive, and in fact it was they who made it possible to hold the match here. I would also say that the attitude of a great many individuals and companies has been very positive. However, in retrospect I am above all else aware of how great an event the championship was and how it received attention both here and abroad, and it is our hope that it has had a positive influence on peoples' feelings about Iceland.

Jonsson: What about the future and the possibilities that have now been opened for us? Do you feel confident to organize another championship here in the near future?

Thorarinsson: It is difficult to prophesy, and worst of all about the future . as it is written somewhere. It is another matter if we would hold another world chess championship. This is a question many people have thought about. I will answer it something like this: "Why not?—we have the experience."